Skip to main content

Full text of "Marihuana-hashish epidemic and its impact on United States security : hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-third Congress, second session [-Ninety-fourth Congress, first session] .."

See other formats


School  of  Law 
Library 


TWWV^VvWWW 


MARIHUANA-HASHISH  EPIDEMIC  AND  ITS 
IMPACT  ON  UNITED  STATES  SECURITY 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE  TO  INVESTIGATE  THE 

ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  INTERNAL  SECURITY 

ACT  AND  OTHER  INTERNAL  SECURITY  LAWS 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

NINETY-THIRD  CONGRESS 

SECOND   SESSION 


MAY   9,    16,    17,    20,    21,    AND    JUNE    13,    1974 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 


yv.x 


•~^ 


U.S.  GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 
33-371  O  WASHINGTON  :   1974 


For  sale  by  the  Superintendent  of  Documents,  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office 
Washington,  D.C.  20402  -  Price  $4.00 


■-,, 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY 
JAMES  O.  EASTLAND,  Mississippi,  Chairman 

JOHN  L.  McCLELLAN,  Arkansas  ROMAN  L.  HRUSKA,  Nebraska 

SAM  J.  ERVIN,  Jr.,  North  Carolina  HIRAM  L.  FONG,  Hawaii 

PHILIP  A.  HART,  Michigan  HUGH  SCOTT,  Pennsylvania 

EDWARD  M.  KENNEDY,  Massachusetts  STROM  THURMOND,  South  Carolina 

BIRCH  BAYH,  Indiana  MARLOW  W.  COOK,  Kentucky 

QUENTIN  N.  BURDICK,  North  Dakota  CHARLES  McC.  MATHIAS,  Jr.,  Maryland 

ROBERT  C.  BYRD,  West  Virginia  EDWARD  J.  GURNEY,  Florida 
JOHN  V.  TUNNEY,  California 


Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the  Administration  of  the  Internal 
Security  Act  and  Other  Internal  Security  Laws 

JAMES  O.  EASTLAND,  Mississippi,  Chairman 
JOHN  L.  McCLELLAN,  Arkansas  STROM  THURMOND,  South  Carolina 

SAM  J.  ERVIN,  Jr.,  North  Carolina  MARLOW  W.  COOK,  Kentucky 

BIRCH  BAYH,  Indiana  EDWARD  J.  GURNEY,  Florida 

J.  G.  Soorwine,  Chief  Counsel 
Raymond  Siflt,  Jr.,  Minority  Counsel 
John  R.  Norpel,  Director  of  Research 
Alfonso  L.  Tarabochia,  Chief  Investigator 


RESOLUTION 

Resolved,  by  the  Internal  Security  Subcommittee  of  thlie  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  That  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Hardin  B.  Jones  taken  in 
executive  session  on  May  21,  1974,  and  the  testimony  of  Dr.  Forest  S. 
Tennant  and  David  O.  Cooke  taken  in  executive  session  on  June  13, 
1974,  be  released  from  the  injunction  of  secrecy  and  printed  in  the 
same  volume  with  the  public  hearings  of  May  9,  16,  17,  and  20,  1974, 
all  on  "The  Marihuana-Hashish  Epidemic  and  Its  Impact  on  U.S. 
Security." 

James  O.  Eastland, 

Chairman. 

Approved :  September  4, 1974. 

(n) 


CONTENTS 


Page 

Introduction    V 

Thursday,  May  9,  1974 1 

Thursday,  May  16,  1974 49 

Friday,  May  17,  1974 147 

Monday,  May  20,  1974 199 

Tuesday,  May  21,  1974 265 

Thursday,  June  13,  1974 287 

Testimony  of — 

Andrew  C.  Tartaglino,  Acting  Deputy  Administrator,  Drug  Enforce- 
ment   Administration 2 

Dr.  Harvey  Powelson,  University  of  California  at  Berkeley 18 

Dr.  Henry  Brill,  regional  director.  New  York  State  Department  of 
Mental  Hygiene 30 

Dr.  Donald  B.  Louria,  New  Jersey  Medical  School,  Newark,  N.J 36 

Maj.  Gen.  Frank  B.  Clay,  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense, 
Drug  and  Alcohol  Abuse 43 

Dr.  Robert  G.  Heath,  chairman.  Department  of  Psychiatry  and  Neu- 
rology, Tulane  University 50 

Dr.  W.  D.  M.  Paton,  the  professor  of  pharmacology,  University  of 
Oxford 70 

Dr.  Morton  Stenchever,  chairman.  Department  of  Obstretrics  and  De- 
partment of  Gynecology,  University  of  Utah 84 

Dr.  Gabriel  Nahas,  professor  of  anesthesiology.  College  of  Physicians 
and  Surgeons,  Columbia  University 92 

Dr.  Akira  Morishima,  associate  professor,  Department  of  Pediatrics, 

College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons,  Columbia  University 109 

Dr.  Robert  Kolodny,  Reproduction  Biology  Research  Foundation,  St. 
Louis,  Mo 117 

Prof.  Cecile  Leuchtenberger,  head  of  Department  of  Cytochemistry, 
Swiss  Institute  for  Experimental  Cancer  Research,  Lausanne, 
Switzerland  126 

Dr.  Julius  Axelrod,  chief,  Section  of  Pharmacology,  Laboratory  of 

Clinical  Science,  National  Institute  of  Mental  Health 142 

Dr.  John  A.  S.  Hall,  chairman,  Department  of  Medicine,  Kingston 
Hospital,  Jamaica 147 

Dr.  H.  Kolansky,  associate  professor  of  psychiatry,  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania School  of  Medicine 154 

Prof.  M.  I.  Soueif,  chairman,  Department  of  Psychology  and  Philos- 
ophy, Cairo  University,  Cairo,  Egypt 177 

Dr.  Andrew  Malcolm,  member,  Drug  Advisory  Committee,  Ontario 
College  of  Pharmacy,  Toronto,  Canada 182 

Dr.  Phillip  Zeidenberg,  research  associate  in  psychiatry,  Columbia 
University    189 

Dr.  Conrad  Schwarz,  associate  professor.  Department  of  Psychiatry, 

University  of  British  Columbia 200 

Prof.  Hardin  B.  Jones,  professor  of  medical  physics  and  physiology, 
assistant  director,  Donner  Laboratory,  University  of  California  at 
Berkeley 206,  265 

Keith.  Cowan,  Prince  Edward  Island,  Canada 250 

Dr.  Forest  S.  Tennant,  former  chief,  Special  Action  Office  for  Drug 
Abuse,  U.S.  Army  in  Europe 288 

David  O.  Cooke,  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense,  accompanied 
by  Dr.  John  F.  Mazzuchi,  Brig.  Gen.  W.  A.  Temple,  Col.  Frank  W. 
Zimmerman.  David  N.  Planton,  Comdr.  S.  J.  Kreider,  Col.  Henry  H. 
Tufts,  Col.  Wayne  B.  Sargent,  and  Col.  John  J.  Castellot 314 

(m) 


APPENDIX 


Page 
Statement  of  Dr.  Arthur  M.  Zimmerman,  professor  of  zoology,  University 

of  Toronto,  Toronto,  Canada 341 

Articles  from  scientific  publications — 

Delta-9  Tetrahydrocannabinol:  Localization  in  Body  Fat  (Science, 
January  26,  1973) 344 

Inhibition  of  Cellular  Mediated  Immunity  in  Marihuana   Smokers 

(Science,  February  1,  1974) 347 

Chromosome  Breakage  in  Users  of  Marihuana  (American  Journal  of 
Obstetrics  and  Gynecology,  January  1,  1974) 349 

Marihuana :  Effects  on  Deep  and  Surface  Electroencephalograms  of 
Rhesus  Monkeys  (Neuropharmacology,  1973) 356 

Marihuana — Effects  on  Deep  and  Surface  Electroencephalograms  of 
Man    (Arch   Gen   Psychiat,   June   1972) 369 

Cerebral  Atrophy  in  Young  Cannabis  Smokers  (The  Lancet,  Decem- 
ber 4,  1971) 383 

Cannabinoid  Content  of  Some  English  Reefers  (Nature,  May  17, 
1974)   393 

Clinical  Effects  of  Marihuana  on  the  Young  (International  Journal  of 
Psychiatry,  June  1972) 396 

Toxic  Effect  of  Chronic  Marihuana  Use  (Journal  of  the  American 
Medical  Association,  October  2,  1972) 402 

Cannabis  as  a  Long  Acting  Intoxicant    (Paper) 413 

Article  concerning  Taxonomic  Classification  of  Marihuana  (Micro- 
gram, publication  of  Drug  Enforcement  Administration,  Feb- 
ruary   1974) 418 

Miscellaneous  Material  Ordered  Into  the  Record 

Commentary  on  Dosages  Used  in  Studies  of  Marihuana  in  Rhesus  Monkeys 

(Submitted  by  Prof.  Robert  G.  Heath,  M.D.) 382 

Letter  from  Prof.  William  Paton  to  Senator  Gurney 392 

Anarchist  Cookbook,  the,  excerpts  from 419 

Turn  On/Tune  In/Drop  Out  (Berkeley  Barb,  May  20,  1966) 422 

Drugs    (Disorientation:  Notes  for  the  Underdog) 423 

Resolution  on  Cannabis  of  the  General  Council  of  the  Canadian  Medi- 
cal Association 424 

Biographical  Notes  of  Department  of  Defense  Witnesses 425 

(TV) 


INTRODUCTION 

BY 

Senator  James  O.  Eastland 

Chairman,  Senate  Subcommittee  on  Internal  Security 

I  consider  the  hearings  which  are  the  subject  of  this  record  to  be 
among  the  most  significant  ever  held  by  the  Senate  Internal  Security 
Subcommittee,  or,  for  that  matter,  by  any  committee  of  Congress.  The 
widespread  interest  already  generated  by  the  hearings  suggest  that 
they  may  play  a  role  in  reversing  a  trend  towards  national  disaster. 

Without  public  awareness,  our  country  has  become  caught  up  in  a 
marihuana-hashish  1  epidemic  that  probably  eclipses,  in  gravity,  the 
national  epidemics  that  have  had  so  debilitating  an  effect  on  the  popu- 
lation of  a  number  of  Middle  Eastern  countries.  Speaking  about  this 
matter,  Mr.  Andrew  C.  Tartaglino,  Deputy  Administrator  of  the  DEA, 
made  this  statement  at  the  opening  hearing  on  May  9,  over  which  I 
presided : 

The  traffic  in,  and  abuse  of,  marihuana  products  has  taken 
a  more  serious  turn  in  the  last  two  or  three  years  than  either 
the  courts,  the  news  media,  or  the  public  is  aware.  The  shift 
is  clearly  toward  the  abuse  of  stronger,  more  dangerous  forms 
of  the  drug  which  renders  much  of  what  has  been  said  in  the 
1960's  about  the  harmlessness  of  its  use  obsolete. 

The  epidemic  began  at  Berkeley  University  at  the  time  of  the  famous 
1965  "Berkeley  Uprising."  Not  only  was  pot-smoking  embraced  as  a 
symbolic  rejection  of  the  establishment,  but,  together  with  the  "dirty 
speech  movement,"  the  right  to  pot  became  an  integral  part  of  the 
catalogue  of  demands  of  the  uprising.  From  Berkeley,  the  marihuana 
epidemic  spread  rapidly  throughout  the  American  campus  community. 
Then  it  spread  down  into  the  high  schools  and  junior  high  schools — 
and  within  the  last  year  or  two  it  has  begun  to  invade  the  grade 
schools.  It  has  also  spread  into  the  ranks  of  professional  society  and 
of  the  bluecollar  workers,  so  that  all  sectors  of  our  society  are  today 
affected  by  the  epidemic.  Today  it  is  estimated  that  there  are  some 
millions  of  regular  marihuana  users  in  the  country,  and  the  evidence 
indicates  that  they  are  graduating  rapidly  to  the  stronger  hemp  drugs, 
hashish  and  liquid  hashish. 

The  spread  of  the  epidemic  has  been  facilitated  by  the  fact  that  most 
of  our  media  and  most  of  the  academicians  who  have  been  articulate 
on  the  subject  have  been  disposed  to  look  upon  marihuana  as  a  rela- 

1  Marihuana  and  hashish  are  both  derived  from  the  cannabis,  or  hemp,  plant.  Marihuana 
consists  of  the  leaves  and  female  flowers  ;  hashish  comes  from  the  resin  of  the  plant. 
Hashish  is  roughly  8  to  10  times  as  strong  as  marihuana. 

(V) 


VI 

tively  innocuous  drug.  (How  the  myth  of  harmlessness  came  to  be  so 
widely  accepted  is  also  part  of  the  subject  of  this  testimony.)  There 
were  some  who  even  held  that  marihuana  was  a  good  thing,  while  most 
held  that  there  really  wasn't  too  much  to  worry  about. 

Taking  advantage  of  the  confusion  and  widespread  ignorance,  a 
variety  of  movements  seeking  the  legalization  of  marihuana  came  into 
existence.  They  gathered  strength  rapidly.  In  fact,  by  early  this  year 
concerned  scientists  and  government  officials  were  almost  ready  to 
throw  in  the  sponge  because  the  battle  looked  so  hopeless. 

This  situation,  by  itself  was  reason  enough  for  concern.  The  Internal 
Security  Subcommittee  decided  to  look  into  it  because  of  internal 
security  considerations  affecting  the  armed  forces  of  the  United  States, 
and  because  of  the  evidence  that  clearly  subversive  groups  played  a 
significant  role  in  the  spread  of  the  epidemic — both  as  propagandists 
and  as  traffickers.  It  was  established,  for  example,  in  previous  hearings 
of  the  subcommittee,  that  Timothy  Leary's  Brotherhood  of  Eternal 
Love  had  for  a  number  of  years  been  the  largest  producers  of  LSD  and 
the  largest  organized  smugglers  of  hashish  in  the  country. 

The  hearings  focused  heavily  on  scientific  evidence  of  physical  or 
psychological  harmfulness,  because  this  was  basic  to  any  assessment 
of  the  impact  of  cannabis  on  security. 

Important  new  scientific  evidence  had  emerged  within  the  last  few 
years.  But  this  evidence  remained  fragmented,  sometimes  inconclu- 
sive, and  almost  invariably  completely  unknown  to  the  public.  The 
situation  was  further  confused  by  contradictory  evidence  and  by  the 
emergence  of  several  best-selling  books  suggesting  a  more  tolerant 
approach  to  marihuana. 

One  of  the  principal  reasons  why  hard  scientific  evidence  has  been 
so  slow  in  emerging  is  that  it  is  only  within  recent  years — in  fact, 
since  1970 — that  accepted  procedures  for  the  quantitative  analysis  of 
marihuana  have  been  established  and  that  carefully  standardized 
strains  of  marihuana  have  become  available  for  research  purposes. 
In  the  absence  of  standardized  research  materials  and  standardized 
analytical  procedures,  research  scientists  in  the  past,  working  with  the 
utmost  conscientiousness,  often  came  up  with  sharply  conflicting  find- 
ings. Within  the  last  few  years,  thanks  to  a  remarkable  program  that 
has  been  developed  at  the  University  of  Mississippi,2  marihuana  re- 
search is  today  moving  forward  without  these  handicaps — and,  as  this 
volume  of  testimony  dramatically  demonstrates,  this  research  is  pro- 
ducing some  highly  dramatic  results. 

2  The  program  Is  known  as  the  Marihuana  Project  of  the  Research  Institute  of  Pharma- 
ceutical Sciences,  which  is  part  of  the  School  of  Pharmacy  at  the  University  of  Mississippi. 
The  program  was  established  in  1968,  as  part  of  a  national  program  of  research,  by  Dr. 
Coy  Waller,  formerly  Vice  President  in  Charge  of  Research  at  Meade-Johnson  and  con- 
sultant to  the  National  Institute  of  Mental  Health,  who  today  serves  as  the  Director  of 
the  Research  Institute.  The  first  Director  of  the  Marihuana  Project,  from  1968  to  1971,  was 
Dr.  Norman  Doorenbos.  Since  1971,  it  has  been  under  the  direction  of  Dr.  Carlton  Turner, 
who  also  serves  as  Associate  Director  of  the  Research  Institute. 

In  addition  to  standardizing  the  marihuana  used  for  research  purposes,  Dr.  Turner's 
scientists  have  developed  analytical  methods  which  enable  them  to  give  accurate  readings 
on  ten  different  cannabinoids  contained  in  marihuana  samples — a  few  years  ago,  they 
were  able  to  analyze  for  only  three  cannabinoid  components.  The  marihuana  the  Institute 
cultivates  is  now  used  routinely  for  all  research  projects  sponsored  through  the  National 
Institute  of  Mental  Health,  while  the  United  Nations  Narcotics  Commission  has  recom- 
mended that  the  analytical  procedures  developed  at  the  University  of  Mississippi  be  used 
worldwide. 

If  today  we  know  far  more  about  marihuana  than  we  did  two  or  three  years  ago,  it  is 
thanks  in  large  measure  to  the  pioneering  work  done  at  this  internationally  unique  research 
center. 


vn 

In  the  recent  hearings,  it  was  obvious  that  one  of  the  first  things 
that  had  to  be  done  was  to  bring  together  the  bits  and  pieces  of  recent 
research  in  an  organized  manner,  because  only  in  this  way  would  the 
total  significance  of  these  findings  become  comprehensible.  The  sub- 
committee, therefore,  issued  invitations  to  some  20  prominent  medical 
researchers  and  psychiatrists.  Most  of  them  were  American,  but  six 
other  countries  were  also  represented  in  the  panel  of  scientists.  The 
pro-marihuana  cabal  could  assail  a  single  scientist  whose  research  per- 
suaded him  that  marihuana  was  a  very  dangerous  drug:  this  they 
could  get  away  with.  But  abuse  and  character  assassination  would  no 
longer  be  persuasive  at  the  point  where  it  was  demonstrated  that  a 
large  number  of  top-ranking  scientists  who  had  done  research  on 
cannabis  were  convinced  that  it  is  a  drug  with  deadly  consequences. 

With  the  assistance  of  several  scientists  who  are  internationally 
known  for  their  research  on  cannabis  and  other  drugs,  the  subcom- 
mittee staff  put  together  a  master  list  of  scientific  witnesses  who,  be- 
tween them,  could  cover  the  newly  available  scientific  evidence  in  a 
broad  spectrum  manner. 

Among  the  eminent  scientists  who  appeared  before  the  Subcom- 
mittee were : 

Dr.  Harvey  Powelson:  Research  Psychiatrist,  Berkeley  Univer- 
sity; Chief  of  the  Psychiatric  Division  of  the  Student  Health  Serv- 
ice at  Berkeley  from  1964  to  1972. 

Dr.  Henry  Brill:  Regional  Director  of  the  New  York  State  De- 
partment of  Mental  Hygiene;  member  and/or  chairman  of  drug  de- 
pendence committees  of  American  Medical  Association,  National  Re- 
search Council,  the  World  Health  Organization,  and  the  FDA;  senior 
psychiatric  member  of  the  Shaf  er  Commission. 

Dr.  Donald  Louria:  Chairman,  Department  of  Preventive  Medi- 
cine and  (Community  Health,  New  Jersey  Medical  School ;  Chairman 
and  President,  New  York  State  Council  on  Drug  Addiction,  1965  to 
1972. 

Professor  W.  D.  M.  Paton:  Head  of  the  department  of  pharma- 
cology at  Oxford  University ;  Chairman  of  committee  overseeing  the 
British  Government's  drug  research  program;  author  of  a  standard 
textbook  on  pharmacology  and  widely  recognized  as  one  of  world's 
leading  pharmacologists. 

Professor  Morton  Stenchever:  Chairman  of  the  Department  of 
Obstetrics  and  Gynecology  at  the  University  of  Utah  Medical  School. 

Dr.  Gabriel  Nahas  :  Research  Professor  at  the  Columbia  University 
College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons ;  simultaneously  Visiting  Profes- 
sor at  the  University  of  Paris. 

Dr.  Akira  Morishima:  Research  geneticist;  Associate  Professor, 
Department  of  Pediatrics,  Columbia  University  College  of  Physicians 
and  Surgeons;  Chief  of  the  Division  of  pediatric  endocrine  service  at 
Babies  Hospital,  New  York. 

Dr.  Cecile  Leuchtenberger  of  Switzerland :  Head  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Cell  Chemistry  at  the  Institute  for  Experimental  Cancer  Re- 
search in  Lausanne ;  founder  and  first  Director  of  Cell  Chemistry  De- 
partment at  Western  Reserve  University. 

Dr.  John  A.  S.  Hall  :  Senior  Physician  and  Chairman,  Department 
of  Medicine,  Kingston  Hospital,  Jamaica,  since  1965 :  Associate  Lec- 
turer in  Medicine,  University  of  West  Indies  and  visiting  Assistant 
Professor  of  Neurology  at  Columbia  University. 


vin 

Dr.  Robert  Kolodny:  Director  of  the  endocrine  research  section 
at  the  Reproductive  Biology  Research  Foundation  in  St.  Louis. 

Professor  M.  I.  Soueif  :  Chairman  of  the  Department  of  Psychology 
and  Philosophy  at  Cairo  University ;  member  of  World  Health  Or- 
ganization Panel  on  Drug  Dependence;  author  of  classic  study  on 
consequences  of  hashish  addiction  in  Egypt. 

Professor  Nils  Bejerot  :  Karolinska  Institute,  Sweden ;  author  of 
"Addiction  and  Society"  and  several  other  standard  texts  on  the  epi- 
demiology of  drug  abuse.  Widely  recognized  as  one  of  foremost  inter- 
national experts  in  this  field. 

Dr.  Andrew  Malcolm:  Toronto  psychiatrist;  member,  Drug  Ad- 
visory Committee,  Ontario  College  of  Pharmacy;  formerly  Senior 
Psychiatrist,  Rockland  State  Hospital,  New  York  (1955-1958) . 

Dr.  Harold  Kolansky  :  Currently  Associate  Professor  of  Psychia- 
try at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania  School  of  Medicine;  twice 
President  of  the  Regional  Council  (Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Dela- 
ware) of  Child  Psychiatry;  Director  of  Child  Psychiatry,  Albert 
Einstein  Medical  Center,  Philadelphia,  1955-1969 ;  Chairman,  Depart- 
ment of  Psychiatry,  Albert  Einstein  Medical  Center,  1968-1969. 

Dr.  William  T.  Moore:  Currently  Associate  Professor  in  Clinical 
Psychiatry,  University  of  Pennsylvania  School  of  Medicine ;  Associate 
Professor  of  Child  Psychiatry  at  Hahnemann  Medical  College  for  13 
years  up  until  1972 ;  for  the  past  five  years  Director  of  Training,  Di- 
vision of  Child  Analysis,  Institute  of  Philadelphia  Association  for 
Psychoanalysis. 

Professor  Robert  Heath  :  Chairman  of  the  Department  of  Psychi- 
atry and  Neurology  at  Tulane  University  Medical  School. 

Dr.  Phillip  Zeidenberg:  Professor  of  Psychiatry  at  Columbia 
University ;  Chairman  of  the  Drug  Dependence  Committee  of  the  New 
York  State  Psychiatric  Institute. 

Dr.  Julius  Axelrod.  Nobel  Prize  winning  research  scientist  at  the 
National  Institute  of  Mental  Health. 

Professor  Hardin  B.  Jones  :  Professor  of  Physiology  and  Professor 
of  Medical  Physics  at  the  University  of  California,  Berkeley ;  Assist- 
ant Director  of  the  Donner  Laboratory  of  Medical  Physics  at  Berkeley. 

Dr.  Conrad  Schwarz  :  Associate  Professor,  Department  of  Psychi- 
atry, University  of  British  Columbia  and  Consultant  Psychiatrist  to 
the  Student  Health  Service;  Chairman  of  the  Drug  Habituation 
Committee  of  the  British  Columbia  Medical  Association. 

Dr.  Forest  S.  Tennant,  Jr. :  Medical  Director  for  several  drug 
abuse  programs  in  the  Los  Angeles  area ;  officer  in  charge  of  the  drug 
abuse  program  of  the  U.S.  Army  Europe,  1971-1972. 

the  scientific  findings 

That  our  hearings  succeeded  in  achieving  their  objective  has  been 
demonstrated  by  the  dramatic  increase  of  interest,  on  the  part  of  the 
scientific  community  as  well  as  the  press,  in  the  new  scientific  evidence 
on  marihuana.  For  example,  a  recent  issue  of  Science  magazine 
(August  23,  1974)  points  out  "the  notion  that  marihuana  is  harmless 
has  enjoyed  a  high  degree  of  acceptability  with  only  a  minimum  of 
scientific  support.  .  .  .  Since  1969,  when  the  federal  government  began 
making  marihuana  of  controlled  quality  available  to  research  sci- 
entists, evidence  suggesting  potential  hazards  has  accumulated  at  a 


rx 

rapid  pace.  Those  five  years  of  research  have  provided  strong  evidence 
that,  if  corroborated,  would  suggest  that  marihuana  in  its  various 
forms  may  be  far  more  hazardous  than  was  originally  suspected."  I 
think  it  worthy  of  note  that  ten  of  the  scientists  whose  findings  were 
quoted  by  the  article  in  Science  were  among  the  witnesses  who  testified 
in  the  subcommittee's  recent  hearings. 

The  collective  testimony  of  the  eminent  scientists  who  came  to 
Washington  to  testify  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

(1)  THC,  the  principal  psychoactive  factor  in  cannabis,  tends  to 
accumulate  in  the  brain  and  gonads  and  other  fatty  tissues  in  the 
manner  of  DDT.  This  was  established  beyond  challenge  by  the  re- 
search of  NIMH  Nobel  Laureate,  Dr.  Julius  Axelrod,  and  his  associ- 
ates. As  a  corollary  of  this,  they  found  that  THC  persists  in  the  body 
long  after  the  act  of  ingestion.  In  some  parts  of  the  body,  residual 
amounts  could  be  found  as  much  as  a  week  after  ingestion. 

(2)  Marihuana,  even  when  used  in  moderate  amounts,  causes  mas- 
sive damage  to  the  entire  cellular  process : 

(a)  It  reduces  DNA  and  RNA  synthesis  within  the  cell,  which 
in  turn  sharply  reduces  the  mitotic  index,  or  the  rate  at  which 
the  cells  give  birth  to  new  cells.  (Nahas,  Morishima,  Zimmerman, 
Leuchtenberger,  Paton) 

(b)  In  the  case  of  the  T-lymphocytes  (the  cells  involved  in  the 
immune  process) ,  marihuana  use  at  the  three-times-a-week  level 
results  in  a  41  percent  reduction  in  cell  birth.  (Nahas  and  associ- 
ates) 

(c)  It  results  in  far  more  cells  with  defective  chromosome 
complements — from  38  to  8  chromosomes  instead  of  the  normal 
complement  of  46.  (Morishima) 

The  findings  of  five  of  the  scientists  who  testified  converged  on  the 
central  theme  of  cellular  damage.  Other  research  that  had  been  done 
in  this  field  was  also  referred  to.  Professor  W.  D.  M.  Paton  of  Oxford 
University,  one  of  the  world's  leading  pharmacologists,  summarized 
this  recent  research  in  these  terms : 

Numerous  such  effects  have  now  been  described,  including 
actions  on  microsomes,  on  mitochondria,  on  neurones,  fibro- 
blasts, white  blood  cells,  and  on  dividing  cells,  affecting 
metabolism,  energy  utilization,  synthesis  of  cellular  constitu- 
ents, and  immunological  responses. 

On  the  specific  question  of  cellular  damage,  additional  evidence  is 
becoming  available  almost  by  the  week.  Since  Dr.  Nahas  testified,  for 
example,  his  findings  on  damage  to  the  immune  cells  have  been  con- 
firmed by  two  nationally  prominent  medical  scientists,  Dr.  Louis 
Harris  and  Dr.  Louis  Lemberger.  Other  aspects  of  cellular  damage 
will  be  covered  in  several  research  papers,  prepared  under  official  au- 
spices, which  are  shortly  to  be  published. 

Needless  to  say,  the  confirmation  that  marihuana  does  such  serious 
damage  to  the  entire  cellular  process  opens  up  an  entire  spectrum  of 
frightening  possibilities. 

(3)  Tied  in  with  its  tendency  to  accumulate  in  the  brain  and  its 
capacity  for  cellular  damage,  there  is  a  growing  body  of  evidence 
that  marihuana  inflicts  irreversible  damage  on  the  brain,  including 
actual  brain  atrophy,  when  used  in  a  chronic  manner  for  several 


years.  Psychiatrists  who  testified  said  that  they  knew  of  many  cases 
of  brilliant  young  people  who  went  on  prolonged  cannabis  binges, 
and  then  tried  to  go  straight — only  to  discover  that  they  could  no 
longer  perform  at  the  level  of  which  they  had  been  capable.  (Heath, 
Powelson,  Kolansky  and  Moore,  Paton)  Professor  Paton  referred  to 
animal  experiments  which  demonstrated  that  rats  exposed  to  mari- 
huana had  smaller  brains  than  rats  which  were  not  exposed,  and  to 
research  by  Dr.  Campbell  and  associates  in  England  which  found  brain 
atrophy  in  a  group  of  young  cannabis  smokers  comparable  to  the 
atrophy  that  is  normally  found  in  people  aged  70  to  90.  Professor 
Heath  reported  that,  in  experiments  with  rhesus  monkeys  exposed  to 
marihuana,  highly  abnormal  brain  wave  patterns  persisted  after  the 
marihuana  was  withdrawn,  suggesting  long-term  or  permanent  dam- 
age to  the  brain. 

(4)  There  is  also  a  growing  body  of  evidence  that  marihuana  ad- 
versely affects  the  reproductive  process  in  a  number  of  ways,  and  that 
it  poses  a  serious  danger  of  genetic  damage  and  even  of  genetic 
mutation.  Scientific  testimony  presented  pointed  to  the  following 
conclusions : 

(a)  Male  hormone  (testosterone)  level  was  reduced  by  44  per- 
cent in  young  males  who  had  used  marihuana  at  least  four  days 
a  week  for  a  minimum  of  six  months.  (Kolodny) 

(b)  Sperm  count  was  dramatically  reduced  in  the  same  group 
of  marihuana  smokers,  falling  almost  to  zero  with  heavy  smok- 
ers, so  that  they  had  to  be  considered  sterile.  (Kolodny)  A  simi- 
lar result  was  found  with  mice.  (Leuchtenberger) 

(c)  Very  heavy  smoking  in  a  number  of  cases  resulted  in  im- 
potence. Potency  was  recovered  in  some  of  these  cases  when  mari- 
huana was  given  up.  (Kolodny,  Hall) 

(d)  In  animal  experiments,  the  spermatids  (the  precursors  of 
the  sperm  cells)  were  found  to  be  abnormal  in  the  sense  that 
they  carried  reduced  amounts  of  DNA.  (Leuchtenberger) 

(e)  Regular  marihuana  use,  even  down  to  the  once  a  week 
level,  results  in  roughly  three  times  as  many  broken  chromo- 
somes as  are  found  in  non-users.  While  further  research  is  nec- 
essary, this  suggests  the  possibility  of  genetic  abnormalities. 
(Stenchever) 

(f )  In  a  number  of  animal  experiments,  marihuana  was  found 
to  cause  a  very  high  rate  of  fetal  deaths  and  fetal  abnormalities, 
including  runting  and  lack  of  limbs — the  thalidomide  effect. 
(Paton) 

(5)  Chronic  cannabis  smoking  can  produce  sinusitis,  pharyngitis, 
bronchitis,  emphysema  and  other  respiratory  difficulties  in  a  year  or 
less,  as  opposed  to  ten  to  tioenty  years  of  cigarette  smoking  to  produce 
comparable  complications.  (Tennant,  Paton,  Kolansky  and  Moore) 
Professor  Paton  pointed  out  that  emphysema,  which  is  normally  a 
condition  of  later  life,  is  now  cropping  up  with  increasing  frequency 
in  young  people,  opening  up  the  prospect  of  "a  new  crop  of  respiratory 
cripples"  early  in  life. 

(6)  Cannabis  smoke,  or  cannabis  smoke  mixed  with  cigarette  smoke, 
is  far  more  damaging  to  lung  tissues  than  tobacco  smoke  alone.  The 
damage  done  was  described  as  "pre-cancerous."  (Tennant,  Leuchten- 
berger) Although  further  research  is  indicated,  preliminary  observa- 


XI 

tions  suggest  that  marihuana  may  be  a  far  more  potent  carcinogen 
than  tobacco. 

(7)  Chronic  cannabis  use  results  in  deterioration  of  mental  function- 
ing, pathological  forms  of  thinking  resembling  paranoia,  and  ua  mas- 
sive and  chronic  passivity''''  and  lack  of  motivation — the  so-called 
"amotivational  syndrome."  (Powelson,  Bejerot,  Zeidenberg,  Malcolm, 
Schwarz,  Jones,  Kolansky  and  Moore,  Hall,  Soueif,  Tennant) 

Describing  the  zombie-like  appearance  of  chronic  cannabis  users, 
Dr.  Tennant  said:  "Major  manifestations  were  apathy,  dullness  and 
lethargy,  with  mild  to  severe  impairment  of  judgment,  concentration 
and  memory  .  .  .  physical  appearance  was  stereotyped  in  that  all 
patients  appeared  dull,  exhibited  poor  hygiene,  and  had  slightly 
slowed  speech.  .  .  ." 

Several  psychiatrists  suggested  that  the  total  loss  of  their  own  will 
would  make  a  large  population  of  cannabis  users  a  serious  political 
danger  because  it  makes  them  susceptible  to  manipulation  by  extrem- 
ists. (Powelson,  Kolansky  and  Moore,  Malcolm) 

THE   SOCIAL   CONSEQUENCES    OF   THE    MARIHUANA   EPIDEMIC 

The  scientific  evidence  presented  to  the  subcommittee  points  to  an 
array  of  frightening  social  consequences,  or  possible  consequences. 

(1)  If  the  cannabis  epidemic  continues  to  spread  at  the  rate  of  the 
post-Berkeley  period,  we  may  find  ourselves  saddled  with  a  large 
population  of  semi-zombies — of  young  people  acutely  afflicted  by  the 
amotivational  syndrome.  There  is  evidence  that  many  of  our  young 
people,  including  high  school  and  junior  high  school  students,  are 
already  afflicted  by  the  "amotivational  syndrome."  The  general  lack 
of  motivation  of  the  current  generation  of  high  school  students  is  a 
common  complaint  of  teachers.  Some  of  them  point  out  that  the 
growth  of  this  phenomenon  in  recent  years  has  roughly  paralleled  the 
spread  of  the  cannabis  epidemic. 

(2)  We  may  also  find  ourselves  saddled  with  a  partial  generation 
of  young  people — people  in  their  teens  and  early  twenties — suffering 
from  irreversible  brain  damage.  Their  ability  to  function  may  im- 
prove if  they  abandon  cannabis,  but  they  will  remain  partial  cripples, 
unable  to  fully  recover  the  abilities  of  their  pre-cannabis  years. 

(3)  The  millions  of  junior  high  school  and  grade  school  children 
who  are  today  using  marihuana  may  produce  another  partial  genera- 
tion of  teenagers  who  have  never  matured,  either  intellectually  or 
physically,  because  of  hormonal  deficiency  and  a  deficiency  in  cell- 
production  during  the  critical  period  of  puberty.  This  fear  was 
expressed  in  particularly  urgent  terms  by  Dr.  Paton  and  Dr.  Kolodny. 
As  Dr.  Paton  put  it,  we  may  witness  the  phenomenon  of  a  generation 
of  young  people  who  have  begun  to  grow  old  before  they  have  even 
matured. 

(4)  There  are  other  frightening  possibilities,  too.  There  is  the 
possibility  of  which  Dr.  Paton  spoke  that  we  may  develop  a  large 
population  of  youthful  respiratory  cripples.  And  there  is  the  pos- 
sibility— which  can  only  be  confirmed  by  epidemiological  studies — 
that  marihuana  smokers  are  producing  far  more  than  their  quota  of 
malformed  or  genetically  damaged  children. 

( 5 )  There  is  the  growing  body  of  evidence  that  marihuana  use  leads 
to  indulgence  in  other  drugs. 


xn 


(6)  If  the  epidemic  is  not  rolled  back,  our  society  may  be  largely 
taken  over  by  a  "marihuana  culture"— a  culture  motivated  by  a  desire 
to  escape  from  reality  and  by  a  consuming  lust  for  self-gratification, 
and  lacking  any  higher  moral  guidance.  Such  a  society  could  not  long 
endure. 

These  are  some  of  the  reasons  why  we  cannot  legalize  marihuana, 
and  why  society  cannot  remain  indifferent  to  the  epidemic. 

THE   EPIDEMIC   POTENTIAL   OF   CANNABIS 

What  makes  the  prospect  even  more  terrifying  is  the  extraordinary 
epidemic  potential  of  cannabis.  It  is  doubtful  that  any  other  drug  in 
common  use  today  has  a  comparable  potential. 

I  do  not  underestimate  the  damage  done  by  the  abusive  use  of 
alcohol.  But  the  nature  of  alcohol  places  certain  limitations  on  its 
epidemic  spread.  It  is  impossible,  or  at  least  very  difficult,  to  take  a 
quart  of  whiskey  or  a  six-pack  of  beer  to  one's  place  of  work,  or,  in  the 
case  of  a  teenager  or  grade  schooler,  to  take  it  to  school.  If  one  did  take 
it  to  school  or  to  work,  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  the  time  during  the 
work  day  or  during  school  hours  to  get  oneself  really  intoxicated  on 
alcohol.  And  if  a  worker  or  a  student  did  manage  to  get  himself  stoned 
on  alcohol,  he  would  be  given  away  by  his  drunken  stagger  or  by  the 
smell  of  alcohol  on  his  breath. 

But  with  marihuana,  there  are  no  such  limitations.  It  is  cheap 
enough  so  that  even  a  fourth  or  fifth  grader  can  afford  to  buy  a  joint 
or  two  with  his  weekly  allowance.  It  is  compact  enough  so  that  a  few 
joints  can  easily  be  concealed  on  the  body.  All  it  requires  is  a  10  or  15 
minute  break  to  get  thoroughly  stoned.  And,  apart  from  a  tired  and 
passive  look  which  may  suggest  that  the  user  is  short  on  sleep,  there 
are  no  telltale  symptoms ;  the  user,  though  stoned,  does  not  walk  with 
a  stagger,  nor  is  there  any  odor  on  his  breath.  A  student  could  sit 
through  an  entire  day  in  a  cannabis  stupor,  and  learn  nothing — and 
his  teacher  would  be  none  the  wiser. 

On  top  of  this,  users  of  marihuana  suffer  from  a  much  more  com- 
pelling urge  to  proselytize  and  involve  others  than  do  users  of  alcohol. 
One  can  attend  a  cocktail  party  and  drink  ginger  ale  and  not  be  har- 
rassed  and  pushed  by  one's  cocktail  friends  to  get  in  on  the  act  and 
drink.  At  pot  parties,  the  pressures  are  infinitely  greater. 

Another  factor  contributing  to  the  spread  of  the  cannabis  epidemic 
is  the  tremendous  potency  of  the  material  available  and  the  ease  with 
which  it  can  be  concealed  and  transported.  A  pound  of  "liquid 
hashish" — a  concentrated  distillate  derived  from  either  marihuana 
or  hashish — would  theoretically  be  enough  to  intoxicate  a  city  of  15,000 
people. 

Still  another  factor  is  that,  with  marihuana  and  hashish,  chronic 
abuse  begins  at  a  use  level  which  would  be  insignificant  with  alcohol. 
A  person  who  took  a  drink  of  whiskey  once  a  week  or  even  three  times 
a  week,  would  be  considered  a  light  drinker ;  it  has  yet  to  be  argued 
that  alcohol  consumption  at  this  level  can  do  any  damage.  But  a  person 
who  smokes  marihuana  three  times  a  week  or  more  is  generally  con- 
sidered a  chronic  smoker;  and  there  are  some  scientists  who  insist 
that  even  once  a  week  smoking  constitutes  chronic  use.  In  support 
of  this  contention,  they  point  to  the  facts  that  THC  persists  in  the 


xin 

brain  for  a  week  or  more  after  smoking,  and  that  some  of  the  research 
covered  in  our  recent  hearings  found  dramatic  changes  even  at  the 
once  a  week  level  (cf.  Stenchever  on  chromosome  damage). 

Finally,  there  is  the  almost  unbelievable  rate  at  which — if  it  is 
readily  available — a  cannabis  user  can  escalate  from  occasionl  social 
use  to  chronic  and  massive  abuse.  It  generally  takes  years  before  a 
chronic  drinker  escalates  to  a  quart  a  day.  But,  according  to  Dr. 
Tennant,  GI's  who  arrived  in  Germany  as  casual  marihuana  users, 
would  a  month  or  two  later  be  consuming  50  or  100  grams — and  in 
some  cases  up  to  600  grams — of  hashish  monthly.  Three  grams  of 
hashish  a  day,  it  should  be  pointed  out,  is  roughly  12  times  the 
amount  required  to  produce  a  hashish  intoxication. 

WHERE    THE    EPIDEMIC    STANDS    TODAY 

There  are  conflicting  estimates  of  the  number  of  chronic  cannabis 
users  in  our  country.  According  to  some  estimates,  there  are  roughly 
20  to  25  million  people  who  have  used  marihuana  in  one  degree  or 
another,  but  only  one  to  two  million  who  may  be  considered  regular 
users.  According  to  the  estimate  of  NOEML  (National  Organization 
for  the  Reform  of  Marihuana  Laws),  the  total  number  of  Americans 
who  have  been  exposed  to  marihuana  runs  close  to  thirty-five  million, 
while  the  number  of  regular  users  is  past  the  ten  million  mark. 

Figures  on  seizures  of  marihuana  and  hashish  submitted  to  our 
hearings  by  the  Drug  Enforcement  Administration  strongly  suggest 
the  validity  of  the  higher  estimate.  According  to  DEA,  federal  seizures 
of  marihuana  over  the  past  five  years  have  increased  tenfold,  to  a  total 
of  780,000  pounds  in  1973,  while  federal  seizures  of  hashish  over  the 
same  period  of  time  increased  twenty-five  fold,  to  a  total  of  almost 
54,000  pounds.  These  figures  do  not  include  seizures  by  state  and  local 
law  enforcement  authorities.  Assuming  that  ten  times  as  much  got  into 
the  country  as  was  actually  seized — a  fairly  conservative  estimate — 
this  would  mean  that  total  consumption  of  marihuana  in  1973  was 
probably  close  to  ten  million  pounds,  while  total  consumption  of 
hashish  probably  exceeded  600,000  pounds.  (These  estimates  make 
some  allowance  for  non-federal  seizures — for  which  no  figures  are 
available.) 

These  are  truly  staggering  quantities  when  one  understands  just  how 
potent  marihuana  and  hashish  are  and  how  little  is  required  to  become 
intoxicated.  No  one  could  possibly  get  intoxicated  on  an  ounce  or  two 
ounces  of  hard  liquor.  An  ounce  of  hashish  with  a  10  percent  THC  con- 
tent is  sufficient  for  a  hundred  intoxications ;  an  ounce  of  marihuana 
with  a  1.5  percent  THC  content  is  enough  for  roughly  twelve  intoxi- 
cations. And  when  it  comes  to  "marihuana  oil,"  or  "liquid  hashish,"  as 
it  is  sometimes  called,  the  THC  content  of  which  can  run  as  high  as 
60  to  90  percent,  we  have  a  substance  with  an  almost  lethal  potential  for 
mass  intoxication.  One  drop  of  liquid  hash  is  enough  to  send  the  user 
into  the  stratosphere,  while  a  pound  of  the  strongest  variety  would  be 
enough  to  intoxicate  a  population  of  15,000. 

These  figures  provide  some  clue — but  only  a  partial  clue — to  the 
damage  done  by  the  massive  quantities  of  marihuana  and  hashish  con- 
sumed in  our  country  last  year. 


XIV 
THE  EMERGENCE  OF  AN  ALCOHOL-CANNABIS  EPIDEMIC 

It  must  be  emphasized  that  those  who  are  caught  up  in  the  cannabis 
epidemic  are  not  using  marihuana  or  hashish  as  a  substitute  for  al- 
cohol. With  increasing  frequency  they  are  being  consumed  together. 
The  scientists  who  testified  before  the  subcommittee  were  agreed  that 
adding  marihuana  to  alcohol,  or  alcohol  to  marihuana,  does  not  pro- 
duce an  arithmetic  effect  but  a  synergistic,  or  compounding,  effect.  The 
combination  of  the  two  intoxicants  produces  a  far  more  potent  and 
dangerous  form  of  intoxication,  whose  short  and  long  term  conse- 
quences we  still  know  very  little  about.  While  there  are  reported  to  be 
some  10  million  problem  drinkers  in  our  country,  the  overwhelming 
majority  of  those  who  use  alcohol  are  what  we  call  social  drinkers, 
who  take  it  occasionally  and  with  moderation.  But  at  the  point  where 
a  person  takes  one  drink  of  whiskey  with  a  joint  of  pot,  we  are  no 
longer  dealing  with  a  social  drinker — we  are  dealing  with  someone 
who  is  suffering  from  a  highly  dangerous  form  of  intoxication. 

In  its  own  right,  the  scale  of  the  current  cannabis  epidemic  would 
give  us  plenty  to  worry  about  and  so  is  the  scale  of  alcohol  abuse.  The 
emergence  of  an  alcohol-cannabis  epidemic  is  even  more  worrisome. 

THE   MYTH  OF  HARMLESSNESS 

The  spread  of  the  epidemic  has  been  facilitated  by  the  widespread 
impression  that  marihuana  is  a  relatively  innocuous  drug.  This  im- 
pression has  been  shared  by  liberals  and  conservatives,  by  laymen  and 
judges,  and  even  by  people  actively  involved  in  the  war  on  drugs.  For 
example,  in  March  of  1973  an  advisory  committee  consisting  of  some 
40  prominent  D.C.  citizens  filed  a  report  urging  the  complete  legaliza- 
tion of  marihuana  on  the  ground  that : 

No  demonstrable  medical  evidence  is  available  to  support 
the  assertion  that  marihuana  use  is  hazardous  or  detrimental 
to  the  physical  or  mental  health  of  the  user. 

The  widespread  acceptance  of  the  myth  of  harmlessness  has  been 
due  to  several  things.  Certainly  a  role  of  some  importance  was  played 
by  the  militant  pro-marihuana  propaganda  campaign  conducted  by 
many  New  Left  organizations,  by  academicians  sympathizing  with  the 
New  Left,  and  by  the  entire  underground  press,  ever  since  the  Berke- 
ley uprising. 

Some  of  this  propaganda  was  positively  euphoric  on  the  virtues  of 
marihuana.  Dr.  Joel  Fort  of  San  Francisco,  a  member  of  the  Sociology 
Department  of  the  University  of  California  and  a  former  consultant 
on  drug  abuse  to  the  World  Health  Organization,  had  this  to  say  on 
the  subject:  "Cannabis  is  a  valuable  pleasure  giving  drug,  probably 
much  safter  than  alcohol,  but  condemmed  by  the  power  structure  of 
our  society."  An  article  in  "The  Sciences"  by  L.  Greenwald  in  1968 
went  even  further.  "Marihuana,"  said  Greenwald,  "restores  to  the  stu- 
dent his  ability  to  feel  in  an  often  hostile  environment,  and  the  liberat- 
ing action  of  that  drug  is  going  to  allow  him  to  experience  more  inti- 
mate social  contact." 

But  the  myth  of  harmlessness  has  been  stimulated  in  even  greater 
degree  by  a  number  of  highly  publicized  writings  and  by  reports,  some 


XV 

official,  some  unofficial,  which  have  taken  a  rather  benign  attitude 
toward  marihuana.  A  major  role  was  also  played  by  the  generous  at- 
tention which  the  media  bestowed  on  militant  drug  enthusiasts  like 
Timothy  Leary  and  Jerry  Kubin.  The  damage  was  further  compounded 
by  the  virtual  blackout  imposed  by  much  of  our  media — at  least  until 
recently — on  adverse  scientific  evidence  about  the  effects  of  marihuana. 
The  result  has  been  that  Congress  and  the  American  public  have  been 
exposed  for  years  to  an  appallingly  one-sided  presentation  of  the 
marihuana  controversy. 

Another  factor  contributing  to  the  myth  of  harmlessness  was  the 
selective  manner  in  which  the  Shaf er  Commission  Eeport  was  handled 
by  the  media.  This  report,  as  several  witnesses  pointed  out,  contained 
a  number  of  apparently  contradictory  passages,  which  made  it  possible 
to  write  a  story  suggesting  caution  or  to  write  one  suggesting  that  its 
emphasis  was  on  tolerance.  But  it  did  contain  quite  a  number  of  fairly 
strong  cautionary  passages.  It  was  for  the  purpose  of  setting  the  rec- 
ord straight  on  the  Shafer  Commission  Report  that  one  of  the  first 
witnesses  heard  by  the  Subcommittee  was  Dr.  Henry  Brill,  who  had 
served  as  senior  psychiatric  member  of  the  Commission.  This  is  what 
Dr.  Brill  had  to  say  on  the  subject : 

I  am  concerned  about  the  misinterpretations  which  have 
developed  with  respect  to  the  marihuana  report  of  that  Com- 
mission. These  misinterpretations  result  from  reading  the  re- 
assuring passages  in  the  report  and  ignoring  the  final  conclu- 
sions and  recommendations,  and  the  passages  in  the  report  on 
which  they  were  based.  As  a  result  it  has  been  claimed  that 
the  Commission's  report  was  intended  to  give  marihuana  a 
clean  bill  of  health,  and  as  a  covert,  or  indirect  support  for 
legalization  of  this  drug  in  the  near  future,  or  as  a  step  in 
that  direction.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth. 

From  my  knowledge  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Commission, 
I  can  reaffirm  that  the  report  and  the  subsequent  statements 
by  the  Commission  meant  exactly  what  they  said,  namely  that 
this  drug  should  not  be  legalized,  that  control  measures  for 
trafficking  in  the  drug  were  necessary  and  should  be  con- 
tinued, and  that  use  of  this  drug  should  be  discouraged  be- 
cause of  its  potential  hazards. 

It  was  because  of  this  pervasive  imbalance  in  dealing  with  the 
question  of  marihuana  that  so  many  intelligent  people  have  been  under 
the  impression  that  the  scientific  community  regards  marihuana  as 
one  of  the  most  innocuous  of  all  drugs.  Part  of  the  purpose  of  our 
recent  hearings  was  to  correct  this  imbalance — to  present  the  "other 
side"  of  the  story — to  establish  the  essential  fact  that  a  large  number 
of  highly  reputable  scientists  today  regard  marihuana  as  an  exceed- 
ingly dangerous  drug.  We  make  no  apology,  therefore,  for  the  one- 
sided nature  of  our  hearings — they  were  deliberately  planned  this  way. 

MARIHUANA    AND    THE    LAW 

In  previous  statements,  I  have  made  it  clear  that  I  am  opposed 
to  the  decriminalization  of  marihuana  use  and  that  I  believe  some 
penalties  have  to  be  retained.  However,  a  man  would  have  to  be  devoid 


XVI 

of  compassion  if  he  did  not  sympathize  with  the  plight  of  a  youthful 
offender  who  was  caught  smoking  marihuana  because  he  succumbed  to 
peer  pressures  or  to  the  bad  advice  he  received  from  older  students 
and  from  a  small  but  vociferous  group  of  academicians.  (The  aca- 
demic propagandists  for  marihuana  are  protected  by  the  First  Amend- 
ment, but  in  my  judgment  they  are  far  more  culpable  than  the  young 
people  who  have  heeded  their  advice  ! )  In  most  cases  involving  youth- 
ful offenders,  especially  first  offenders,  the  purpose  of  justice  is  not 
served  by  sentencing  them  to  prison  and  giving  them  criminal  records. 
Our  federal  laws  and  many  of  our  state  laws  have  in  recent  years  been 
modified  in  a  manner  that  reflects  a  more  compassionate  approach, 
and  the  law  is  further  tempered  by  the  compassionate  understanding 
which  the  great  majority  of  judges  have  for  the  problems  of  young 
people. 

Although  there  is  still  some  unevenness  in  the  state  laws  governing 
the  use  of  marihuana  and  although  there  is  always  room  for  review 
and  improvement,  in  practice  very  few  young  people  are  being  sent 
to  prison  for  simple  possession  of  marihuana,  especially  when  they 
are  first  offenders.  On  this  point,  there  is  such  broad  agreement  that 
I  feel  it  is  no  longer  at  issue. 

But  there  is  a  militant  lobby  in  our  country  which  has  been  agi- 
tating and  lobbying  for  the  complete  legalization  of  marihuana.  As 
a  stepping  stone  in  that  direction,  they  are  working  for  the  complete 
decriminalization  of  simple  possession.  This  means  that  personal  use 
of  marihuana  would  no  longer  be  covered  by  criminal  law,  that  it 
would  not  even  be  considered  a  misdemeanor  under  the  law.  These 
matters  still  are  at  issue — and  I  truthfully  believe  that  they  cannot 
intelligently  be  decided  without  an  assessment  of  the  known  and  po- 
tential dangers  posed  by  marihuana  use. 

Not  all  drugs  are  equal — no  one.  for  example,  has  yet  proposed 
that  we  deal  with  coffee  and  heroin,  or  tobacco  and  heroin,  in  exactly 
the  same  manner.  And  the  evidence  I  have  presented  in  the  preceding 
pages  should  be  sufficient  to  establish  that  the  dangers  of  cannabis 
are  much  closer  to  the  dangers  of  heroin,  in  scope  and  quality,  than 
they  are  to  the  admitted  but  far  more  limited  dangers  of  coffee  or 
tobacco — or,  for  that  matter,  alcohol. 

The  scientists  who  testified  before  the  subcommittee  were  unani- 
mous on  the  point  that  it  made  no  sense  to  send  young  people  to  prison 
for  simple  possession  of  a  few  joints  of  marihuana.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  were  strongly  opposed  to  legalization,  and  not  one  of  them 
spoke  in  favor  of  decriminalization.  They  expressed  the  belief  that 
it  would  seriously  undercut  any  national  effort  to  discourage  mari- 
huana use  if  all  penalties  were  removed  for  simple  possession,  as  the 
Shafer  Commission  had  recommended — and  which  remains  the  con- 
tinuing objective  of  the  pro-marihuana  lobby.  Dr.  Brill,  who,  as  a 
member  of  the  Shafer  Commission,  had  voted  in  favor  of  eliminating 
all  penalties,  indicated  to  the  subcommittee  that  he  was  now  re- 
thinking this  recommendation. 

Commenting  on  the  proposal  that  the  decision  on  whether  or  not 
to  use  drugs,  and  especially  marihuana,  should  be  left  to  the  indi- 
vidual, Dr.  Andrew  Malcolm,  a  distinguished  Canadian  psychiatrist, 
called  for  a  combination  of  education  and  the  law.  Said  Dr.Malcolm : 

It  is  necessary  to  have  some  external  restraint  when,  indeed, 
some  of  the  people  are  incapable  of  exercising  internal  re- 


XVII 

straint.  But  those  people  who  propose  [that  the  matter  be 
left  to]  "wise  personal  choice"  usually  are  unalterably  op- 
posed to  any  kind  of  external  restraint.  It  is  very  foolish,  be- 
cause what  we  need,  in  fact,  is  both  of  these  elements. 

Dr.  Phillip  Zeidenberg,  Chairman  of  the  Drug  Dependence  Com- 
mittee of  the  New  York  State  Psychiatric  Institute,  while  he  held  that 
the  marihuana  epidemic  could  not  be  eradicated  by  legal  measures 
alone,  nevertheless  strongly  opposed  legalization  and  said  that  there 
have  to  be  some  penalties  for  use.  These  were  Dr.  Zeidenberg's  words : 

I  believe  that  legalization  will  turn  on  a  "green  light" 
which  will  enormously  increase  the  number  of  chronic  heavy 
users,  just  as  it  has  in  every  other  country  where  de  facto 
legalization  exists.  Once  this  happens,  marihuana  will  be- 
come an  integral  part  of  our  social  structure  and  take  on 
complicated  social  and  symbolic  significance,  as  tobacco  and 
alcohol  already  have.  Once  this  happens,  it  will  be  virtually 
impossible  to  remove  it. 

Ultrapunitive  measures  taken  against  individuals  occasion- 
ally using  the  drug  can  only  lead  to  the  backlash  of  pressure 
for  legalization.  Offenders  should  be  given  light,  but  signifi- 
cant sentences,  enough  to  be  a  sufficient  deterrent  to  repeated 
use.  Chronic  heavy  users  should  be  offered  psychiatric  treat- 
ment, not  jail The  job  of  the  law  is  to  find  the  appropriate 

deterrent  so  that  the  marihuana  problem  is  kept  as  a  minor 
drug-abuse  problem  without  crucifying  errant  adolescents. 

Warning  about  the  drive  to  legalize  cannabis  in  the  United  States, 
Professor  Nils  Bejerot  of  Sweden  said : 

The  demand  for  legalizing  cannabis  has  been  strongest  in 
those  countries  which  have  had  the  shortest  experience  and 
the  weakest  forms  of  the  drug.  Correspondingly,  I  consider 
that  as  a  psychiatrist  one's  attitude  to  cannabis  becomes  more 
negative  the  more  one  sees  of  its  effects. 

If  cannabis  were  legalized  in  the  United  States,  this  would 
probably  be  an  irreversible  process  not  only  for  this  country 
and  this  generation,  but  perhaps  for  the  whole  of  Western 
civilization.  As  far  as  I  can  see,  another  result  would  be  a 
breakdown  of  the  international  control  system  regarding 
narcotics  and  dangerous  drugs. 

The  pro-marihuana  lobby  brandishes  the  statistic  that  there  were 
some  400,000  arrests  nationwide  for  marihuana  offenses  last  year.  They 
do  so  in  a  manner  which  creates  the  impression  that  some  400,000 
young  people  went  to  jail  because  they  were  caught  with  a  few  joints 
in  their  possession.  The  actual  situation  is  quite  different, 

The  number  of  arrests  involving  marihuana  was  very  high,  among 
other  reasons  because  virtually  every  petty  criminal  arrested  for  shop- 
lifting or  burglary  or  mugging  or  other  similar  offenses  had  mari- 
huana in  his  possession  at  the  time  of  his  arrest.  But  according  to  many 
reports,  our  law  enforcement  authorities — federal,  state,  and  local — in 
most  cases  do  not  even  bother  to  make  arrests  when  they  find  young 
people  smoking  marihuana  or  in  possession  of  less  than  an  ounce. 

The  cases  that  do  come  to  court  for  the  most  part  receive  suspended 
sentences  or  fines,  while  most  states  now  have  a  provision  in  their  laws, 

33-371    O  -   74   -  2 


XVIII 

similar  to  the  provision  in  the  federal  law,  calling  for  the  expunging 
of  the  record  for  first  offenders  after  one  year,  if  parole  is  satisfac- 
torily completed. 

However,  the  law  is  uneven  from  state  to  state.  Some  states,  while 
they  have  the  theoretical  power  to  send  first  offenders  to  prison,  in 
practice  rarely  use  this  power.  But  here  and  there,  it  must  be  conceded, 
simple  possession  is  still  punished  by  prison  terms. 

I  believe  it  would  be  helpful  in  dealing  with  this  situation  if  the 
federal  law  and  state  laws  could  be  brought  into  basic  harmony  on  the 
question  of  marihuana.  I  do  not  suggest  that  the  states  slavishly  adapt 
their  laws  to  the  current  federal  model ;  in  many  respects,  in  fact,  I 
think  federal  law  has  something  to  learn  from  existing  state  statutes. 

There  is  one  state  statute  that  does  not  recommend  itself  as  a  model : 
that  is  the  marihuana  law  recently  adopted  by  the  State  of  Oregon. 
Under  this  law,  simple  possession  of  small  quantities  of  marihuana  is 
not  treated  as  a  violation  of  the  criminal  law  but  as  a  civil  violation — 
something  akin  to  a  parking  ticket.  While  the  maximum  fine  provided 
is  one  hundred  dollars,  in  practice  the  fines  imposed  rarely  exceed 
thirty  dollars.  And  those  thus  fined,  if  they  can  afford  it,  can  go  on 
collecting  marihuana  violations  just  as  freely  as  some  chronic  illegal 
parkers  collect  parking  tickets. 

This  approach,  I  submit,  is  altogether  too  permissive  and  just 
doesn't  take  into  account  the  serious  social  damage  done  by  marihuana 
or  the  compelling  need  to  protect  society  against  the  spread  of  the 
habit.  It  doesn't  take  into  consideration  the  basic  fact  that  all  drug  ad- 
diction— including  marihuana  addiction — is  like  a  contagious  disease. 
Society  can't  remain  indifferent  to  the  spread  of  this  disease. 

The  law  must  be  framed  in  a  manner  that  makes  it  unmistakably 
clear  to  young  people  that  smoking  marihuana  is  a  crime  against  so- 
ciety. This  is  something  that  decriminalization  would  completely 
destroy.  I  believe  that  the  kind  of  escalated  penalties  provided  by 
state  law  in  New  Mexico,  to  give  one  example,  make  much  more  sense. 
Under  this  law,  the  possession  of  one  ounce  or  less  for  a  first  offender 
is  punishable  by  a  fine  of  $50  to  $100  and /or  15  davs  in  jail.  The  jail 
sentences  are  rarely  imposed,  but  this  much  discretion  is  given  to  the 
judge.  The  penalty  for  repeat  offenders  is  a  fine  of  $100  to  $1,000 
and/or  one  year  in  jail.  Suspended  sentences  are  frequently  given  and 
there  is  provision  for  expunging  the  record  after  one  year. 

New  legislation  governing  the  use  of  drugs  requires  the  most  careful 
consideration  by  Congress  because — as  Dr.  Bejerot  pointed  out  conces- 
sions to  tolerance,  once  made,  are  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to 
eradicate.  However,  as  far  as  marihuana  use  is  concerned,  I  believe 
that  the  philosophy  guiding  such  legislation  miqrht  well  be  based  on  the 
opinions  expressed  by  Dr.  Zeidenberg  and  the  other  scientists  who 
testified  before  the  subcommittee.  I  think  there  is  much  merit  to  Dr. 
Zeidenberg's  proposal,  for  example,  that  instead  of  jail  sentences,  we 
might  consider  sending  chronic  abusers  for  a  period  of  time  to  an 
institution  where  they  will  be  given  intensive  education  on  drugs  and 
psychiatric  treatment  if  thev  need  it. 

When  it  comes  to  the  pushers  and  the  traffickers.  I  think  our  federal 
and  state  laws  have  got  to  be  reinforced.  I  find  it  an  outrage  that,  over 
and  over  again,  criminals  caught  in  the  possession  of  hundreds  and 
even  thousands  of  pounds  of  marihuana  get  off  with  very  light  sen- 
tences or  even  with  six  months  suspended  sentence.  For  the  pushers 


XIX 

and  traffickers,  there  have  got  to  be  heavy  minimum  sentences,  and 
they  have  got  to  be  mandatory. 

The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  it  might  help  to  break  up  the 
traffic  in  drugs  if  offenders  at  every  level — users,  pushers,  and  small 
and  intermediate  traffickers — could  be  assured  of  suspended  sentences 
if  they  cooperated  by  identifying  the  source,  or  sources,  from  which 
they  had  obtained  their  drugs.  This  is  a  proposal  which  merits  serious 
consideration. 

There  are  some  who  argue  that  tough  law  enforcement  is  not  the 
answer  to  the  drug  problem,  that  we  won't  be  able  to  deal  effectively 
with  the  drug  problem  until  we  eliminate  our  slums,  eliminate  pov- 
erty, eliminate  unemployment,  and  create  a  social  utopia.  I  am  all  in 
favor  of  doing  everything  we  reasonably  can  do  to  improve  the  qual- 
ity of  our  society.  But  the  fact  is  that  every  year  since  the  early  six- 
ties has  witnessed  a  massive  increase  in  the  amount  we  spend  for  new 
social  programs — and  the  same  period  of  time  has  witnessed  a  stagger- 
ing increase  in  our  drug  protein. 

No  drug  problem  has  ever  been  controlled  by  decriminalization  or 
by  social  reforms.  In  every  country  where  the  drug  problems  have 
been  effectively  controlled,  it  has  been  thanks  to  strong  laws  against 
both  the  use  and  sale  of  the  drug.  That  is  how  it  is  controlled  in  Com- 
munist countries ;  and  that  is  how  it  has  been  controlled  in  some  non- 
Communist  countries,  both  authoritarian  and  democratic.  There  is  no 
serious  drug  problem,  for  the  indigenous  population  or  for  the  GI's, 
in  either  Taiwan  or  South  Korea.  Nor  is  there  one  in  Japan.  The  con- 
trast between  Germany  and  Italy  is  most  instructive  in  this  connection. 
In  Germany,  where  drug  laws  are  lax  and  law  enforcement  ineffective 
because  it  is  fragmented  among  the  Laender,  or  states,  there  has  been 
a  runaway  epidemic  of  hashish  consumption  among  the  American 
GI's.  (According  to  Defense  Department  witnesces,  this  situation  has 
now  improved  significantly — although  it  still  remains  serious.) 
In  Italy,  where  the  drug  laws  are  mn<rh  stronger,  drug  use  among 
GI's  has  been  kept  to  a  minimal  level.  The  GI's  in  both  countries  are 
basically  the  same.  The  difference  is  the  law. 

THE    1SEED   FOR   A    NATIONAL   EDUCATION   PROGRAM 

The  scale  of  the  marihuana-hashish  epidemic  makes  it  essential  that 
we  embark — with  as  little  delay  as  possible — on  a  national  educational 
program  directed  in  the  first  place  to  our  young  people. 

Can  the  facts  that  are  assembled  in  this  volume  be  communicated 
to  young  people  who  are  disposed  to  be  skeptical  about  information 
they  receive  from  "the  establishment?"  I  am  convinced  that  this 
evidence  can  be  communicated  to  young  people  and  can  influence 
them — because  it  is  far  more  graphic,  far  more  persuasive  and  far 
more  authoritative  than  any  information  that  has  heretofore  been 
available  for  marihuana  education  programs. 

Dr.  Forrest  Tennant,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  U.S.  Army  drug 
program  in  Europe  from  1968  to  1970,  told  the  subcommittee  that  at 
one  point  he  had  actually  given  up  on  anti-cannabis  educational  pro- 
grams because  the  material  at  that  time  was  not  too  persuasive,  and 
while  the  programs  discouraged  some  GI's,  they  stimulated  the  cur- 
iosity of  others,  so  that  there  was  no  real  net  progress.  He  expressed 


XX 

the  conviction,  however,  that  armed  with  the  recent  evidence  that  had 
been  presented  to  the  subcommittee  by  so  many  eminent  scientists,  it 
would  be  possible  to  mount  an  educational  program  that  GI's  would 
find  credible.  The  fact  is  that  no  young  person  wants  to  run  the  risk 
of  irreversible  brain  damage,  and  no  young  male  wants  his  male  hor- 
mone level  reduced  by  more  than  40  percent  or  his  sperm  count  reduced 
to  close  to  zero.  Nor  does  any  young  person,  boy  or  girl,  want  to  run 
the  risk  of  genetically  damaged  children.  These  are  dangers  that 
young  people  will  respond  to. 

There  is  an  even  larger  matter  that  should  be  considered  by  every 
young  person  who  finds  himself  yielding  to  the  temptation  of  drugs 
or  to  peer  pressures.  Whatever  each  of  us  does,  affects,  for  better  or 
for  worse,  all  those  around  us.  And  the  fact  is  that  every  young  person 
who  takes  marihuana  or  hashish  or  other  drugs,  drags  down  not  only 
himself,  but  drags  down  his  friends,  drags  down  his  family,  drags 
down  his  community,  drags  down  his  nation.  I  would  commend  to 
every  young  person  who  is  prepared  to  stop  and  think  the  wise  words 
of  Dr.*  Gabriel  Nahas,  one  of  the  eminent  scientists  who  appeared  as  a 
witness  before  the  Subcommittee : 

One  may  wonder...  how  long  a  political  system  can 
endure  when  drug  taking  becomes  one  of  the  prerequisites 
of  happiness.  If  the  American  dream  has  lost  its  attraction, 
it  will  not  be  retrieved  through  the  use  of  stupefying  drugs. 
Their  use  only  delays  the  young  in  their  quest  to  understand 
the  world  they  now  live  in  and  their  desire  to  foster  a  better 
world  for  tomorrow. 

A  final  word  of  an  editorial  nature.  So  many  scientific  papers  and 
supporting  documents  were  left  with  the  subcommittee  by  the  wit- 
nesses that  the  inclusion  of  all  of  them  would  have  made  this  a  docu- 
ment of  almost  prohibitive  length.  In  the  interests  of  economy, 
only  a  portion  of  these  documents  have  been  included  in  the  Ap- 
pendix. I  particularly  regret  that  it  was  not  possible  to  include  a 
bibliography  of  some  800  cannabis  research  papers  which  Professor 
W.  D.  M.  Paton  of  Oxford  prepared  for  the  subcommittee,  because  this 
volume  was  already  in  page  proof  at  the  time  of  its  arrival.  I  ask  the 
indulgence  of  the  scientists  who  gave  supplementary  material  to  the 
subcommittee  which  has  not  been  included  in  the  printed  Appendix. 
Hopefully,  this  material  can  be  included  in  a  followup  study  or 
documentation. 

On  behalf  of  the  subcommittee,  I  want  to  thank  the  many  dis- 
tinguished witnesses  who  gave  so  generously  of  their  time  to  make 
these  landmark  hearings  possible. 


MARIHUANA-HASHISH  EPIDEMIC  AND  ITS  IMPACT  ON 
UNITED  STATES  SECURITY 


THURSDAY,  MAY  9,   1974 

U.S.  Senate, 
Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the 
Administration  of  the  Internal  Security  Act 

and  Other  Internal  Security  Laws 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  D.C. 

The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  notice,  at  11  a.m.  in  room 
2228,  Dirksen  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  James  O.  Eastland 
presiding. 

Present :  Senators  Eastland  and  Thurmond. 

Also  present:  J.  G.  Sourwine,  chief  counsel,  and  David  Martin, 
senior  analyst. 

Senator  Eastland.  The  hearings  on  which  we  are  embarking 
today  deal  with  the  "Marihuana-Hashish  Epidemic  and  Its  Impact 
on  the  United  States  Security."  They  represent  an  extension  of  the 
previous  hearings  the  subcommittee  has  held  on  the  world  drug 
situation,  which  have  already  resulted  in  eight  volumes  of  published 
testimony.  In  opening  these  hearings,  I  want  to  repeat  just  a  few 
of  the  points  I  made  in  a  statement  I  put  out  yesterday. 

Over  the  past  5  years  there  has  been  a  runaway  escalation  in  the 
use  of  marihuana  and  hashish.  What  was  once  a  campus  phenome- 
non has  moved  down  to  the  high  schools  and  the  junior  high  schools 
and  the  grade  schools,  and  upward  into  the  ranks  of  adult  society. 

The  spread  of  the  cannabis  epidemic  has  been  facilitated  by  a 
massive  and  perplexing  imbalance  in  the  published  information 
generally  available  to  the  public  on  the  subject  of  marihuana.  There 
are  competent  scientists  who  believe  that  it  is  relatively  harmless. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  large  body  of  scientists  of  interna- 
tional reputation  whose  research  on  cannabis  has  convinced  them 
that  it  is  a  highly  dangerous  drug,  and  this  in  many  different  ways. 

When  a  conflict  of  opinion  exists  within  the  scientific  community 
on  a  question  as  important  as  marihuana,  the  Congress  and  the 
American  people  are  entitled  to  a  fair  presentation  of  both  sides 
to  this  controversy.  In  fact,  however,  there  has  been  widespread 
publicity  for  writings  and  research  advocating  a  more  tolerant 
attitude  towards  marihuana — while  there  has  been  little  or  no 
publicity  for  writings  or  research  which  point  to  serious  adverse 

(l) 


consequences.  The  writings  are  there,  the  research  papers  by  eminent 
scientists  are  there,  the  books  are  there — but  very  few  people  know 
about  them.  One  witness  who  will  appear  before  the  subcommittee 
will  testify  that  in  campus  bookstores  in  the  United  States,  Canada, 
and  England,  virtually  all  of  the  literature  he  found  on  marihuana — 
and  he  found  a  lot  of  it— took  a  tolerant  attitude  toward  it  or  even 
advocated  legalization. 

It  is  because  of  this  strange  imbalance  in  dealing  with  the  ques- 
tion of  marihuana  that  most  intelligent  people  are  under  the  im- 
pression that  the  bulk  of  the  scientific  community  looks  upon  mari- 
huana as  a  relatively  innocuous  drug.  Part  of  the  purpose  of  the 
forthcoming  hearings  will  be  to  inquire  into,  and  document,  the 
extent  of  the  imbalance.  In  doing  this,  we  shall,  in  effect,  be  pre- 
senting the  "other  side",  so  that  the  Senate  and  the  American  people 
will  have  a  better  understanding  of  both  sides  of  this  controversy. 

In  this  morning's  hearing  our  witnesses  will  present  an  overview 
of  the  cannabis  epidemic  from  the  time  of  the  1964  Berkeley  upris- 
ing, which  marked  the  beginning  of  the  campus  epidemic,  to  the 
present  day.  Our  witnesses  this  morning  are  Dr.  Harvey  Powelson 
of  the  University  of  California;  Dr.  Henry  Brill  of  Pilgrim  State 
Hospital  in  New  York;  Mr.  Andrew  C.  Tartaglino  of  the  Drug 
Enforcement  Administration;  Maj.  Gen.  Frank  B.  Clay  of  the  De- 
partment of  Defense;  and  Dr.  Donald  Louria  of  the  New  Jersey 
Medical  School. 

Gentlemen,  I  want  to  thank  you  for  taking  the  trouble  to  come 
before  the  subcommittee  to  testify  on  the  subject  of  our  inquiry. 
In  the  interest  of  saving  time,  I  would  like  to  ask  that  you  all  rise  and 
be  sworn  simultaneously.  If  you  would  come  forward,  gentlemen. 

Do  you  solemnly  swear  the  testimony  you  are  about  to  give  will 
be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help 
you  God? 

Dr.  Powelson.  I  do. 

Dr.  Brill.  I  do. 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  I  do. 

General  Clay.  I  do. 

Dr.  Lotjria.  I  do. 

Senator  Eastland.  Mr.  Tartaglino,  will  you  come  forward? 

TESTIMONY    OF    ANDREW    C.    TARTAGLINO,    ACTING    DEPUTY 
ADMINISTRATOR,  DRUG  ENFORCEMENT  ADMINISTRATION 

Mr.  Martin.  Mr.  Tartaglino,  a  few  questions  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  your  qualifications.  You  are  Acting  Deputy  Admin- 
istrator of  the  Drug  Enforcement  Administration? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Yes,  sir;  I  am. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  have  held  this  position  since  July  1,  1973? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Prior  to  that  you  held  a  number  of  important  posi- 
tions in  various  agencies  concerned  with  the  enforcement  of  our 
drug  laws  ? 


Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Your  first  assignment  in  this  field  was  with  the  Fed- 
eral Bureau  of  Narcotics,  in  which  you  served  as  a  criminal  investi- 
gator from  January  1963  to  April  1966? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  I  served  as  criminal  investigator. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  is  not  reflected  in  the  biography  which  we 
were  given.  Then,  you  have  been  active  in  the  field  of  enforcing  our 
drug  laws  for  more  than  20  years  ? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Mr.  Tartaglino,  before  you  start  your  statement, 
will  you  tell  us  briefly  what  you  mean  by  the  words  "hashish'5  and 
"cannabis*',  I  think  it  would  help  people  to  have  a  clearer  under- 
standing of  your  testimony. 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  It  means  all  the  preparations  of  the  cannabis 
sativa  plant  of  which  there  is  but  a  single  species.  It  includes  the 
typical  marihuana  cigarette,  hashish,  marihuana  or  hashish  oil,  et 
cetera. 

Mr.  Martin.  Marihuana  and  hashish  are  not  basically  different 
substances  ? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  they  come  from  the  same  plant. 
What  I  have  brought  with  me  this  morning  is  an  internal  publica- 
tion which  sets  out  pretty  much  in  detail  what  we  mean  when  we 
are  discussing  broader  terms.  If  you  like,  I  will  submit  that  for  the 
record. 

Mr.  Martin.  May  that  be  admitted  in  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  Eastland.  Yes. 

[The  document  referred  to  may  be  found  in  the  appendix,  p.  418.] 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Tartaglino,  you  may  proceed  with 
your  statement. 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Mr.  Chairman  and  distinguished  members  of  the 
subcommittee:  My  name  is  Andrew  C.  Tartaglino  and  I  am  the 
Acting  Deputy  Administrator  for  the  Drug  Enforcement  Admin- 
istration within  the  Department  of  Justice.  Today  I  am  appearing 
before  you  on  behalf  of  Mr.  John  E.  Bartels,  Jr.,  our  Admin- 
istrator, who  is  presently  out  of  the  country  on  official  travel.  Ap- 
pearing with  me  as  counsel  is  Mr.  Gene  K.  Haislip,  also  of  DEA. 

I  am  pleased  to  appear  before  your  committee  this  morning  in 
connection  with  its  continuing  inquiry  into  the  illicit  traffic  in,  and 
abuse  of,  marihuana.  There  is  perhaps  no  more  controversial  sub- 
ject in  the  area  of  drug  control. 

Marihuana  has  become  the  focus  of  an  organized  campaign  de- 
signed to  make  its  use  a  legally  sanctioned  and  permanent  feature 
of  our  society.  Persons  who  take  this  position  are  fond  of  citing 
the  emotional  propaganda  of  the  1930's  which  referred  to  it  as  the 
"killer  weed".  But  anyone  familiar  with  the  pro-marihuana  litera- 
ture of  the  present  can  see  that  they  have  indulged  in  equally 
exaggerated  misrepresentations  in  the  opposite  direction.  I  believe 
that  some  of  the  data  I  have  to  present  today  will  show  that  their 
point  of  view  is  equally  out  of  date. 


The  details  of  the  medical  and  scientific  facts  concerning  mari- 
huana abuse  are  matters  which  I  prefer  to  leave  to  the  doctors  and 
scientists  whom  you  have  invited  to  appear  before  you  today.  My 
own  view  is  that  it  is  a  potentially  harmful  substance  which  we 
should  not  permit  to  become  an  accepted  part  of  our  society.  Those 
of  us  in  law  enforcement  have  felt  that  the  dangers  inherent  in  this 
drug  would  become  more  apparent  with  increasing  research ;  and  we 
believe  this  is  in  fact  now  occurring.  The  earlier  views  of  some 
observers  in  the  1960's  were  based  on  examination  of  short-term 
users  of  marihuana  of  a  relatively  low  potency.  Concern  has  in- 
creased now  that  scientific  investigators  have  been  able  to  study  the 
the  effects  of  chronic  use. 

A  major  factor  encouraging  this  conservative  point  of  view  is  the 
steady  trend  toward  the  abuse  of  more  potent  marihuana  prepara- 
tions such  as  hashish  and  hashish  oil.  This  trend  can  be  seen  in  the 
figures  attached  to  my  statement  which  show  that  seizures  of 
hashish  have  increased  by  2,274  percent  during  the  last  5  years  to 
a  total  of  almost  27  tons  for  calendar  year  1973.  Incidentally,  when 
Mr.  Bartels,  our  Administrator,  testified  before  your  committee  in 
October  of  last  year,  the  hashish  seizures  for  the  first  half  of  1973 
were  below  the  rate  of  the  previous  year.  Now  that  figures  for  1973 
are  complete,  they  exceed  the  previous  year  by  12  tons. 

The  mission  of  the  Drug  Enforcement  Administration,  however, 
is  the  suppression  of  the  traffic  in  marihuana  products  and  not  their 
use  which  is  primarily  a  problem  for  the  Nation's  health  and  edu- 
cational authorities.  While  most  of  the  drug  law  enforcement  effort 
is  conducted  at  the  State  and  local  level,  the  Federal  Government 
through  the  DEA  is  uniquely  suited  to  fulfill  a  broader  mission — 
that  of  disrupting  marihuana  and  hashish  traffic  which  is  organized 
at  the  interstate  and  international  levels.  To  this  end,  our  enforce- 
ment effort  is  focused  on  stopping  the  flow  of  the  drug  at,  or  near, 
its  foreign  source  and  in  disrupting  commerce  in  marihuana  at  its 
highest  level  where  the  apprehension  of  violators  can  have  the  most, 
impact.  We  have  found  that  the  closer  the  point  of  interdiction  is 
to  the  source  of  the  drug,  the  greater  is  the  quantity  handled  by  a 
decreasing  number  of  people.  This  is  the  target  at  which  we  aim  in 
order  to  achieve  optimum  results. 

The  traditional  source  of  marihuana  reaching  the  United  States 
is  Mexico.  It  is  illegally  cultivated  for  this  purpose  on  "marihuana 
plantations"  in  remote  areas  where  little  control  is  exercised  bv  the 
central  government.  After  harvesting  and  packaging,  it  may  then 
move  into  the  United  States  concealed  in  the  normal  stream  of 
commerce,  or  by  clandestine  means  utilizing  aircraft,  vessels,  four- 
wheel  drive  vehicles,  or  body-packs. 

Beginning  with  1970,  substantial  quantities  also  began  to  arrive 
from  Jamaica  which  has  now  become  another  principal  source  of 
supply.  Lesser  amounts  are  now  being  smuggled  from  Colombia 
as  well,  and  hashish  may  originate  from  any  one  of  several  Middle 
and  Far-Eastern  countries,  principally  Morocco,  Lebanon,  Afghan- 
istan, and  Nepal. 


There  has  been  as  much  misrepresentation  of  the  nature  of  the 
traffic  in  marihuana  as  there  has  been  regarding  the  drug  itself. 
Many  have  the  impression  that  this  traffic  is  somehow  unlike  that 
involving  other  drugs;  that  it  is  conducted  more  informally  by  stu- 
dents and  young  persons  for  reasons  other  than  profit.  This  is  no 
more  the  case  today  than  it  is  with  heroin  or  other  contraband. 

The  traffic  in  marihuana  is  often  a  highly  organized,  well  financed 
venture  involving  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  of  illegal  profits. 
The  persons  who  engage  in  it  are  essentially  the  same  criminal  types 
who  organize  other  forms  of  illicit  drug  traffic  and  have  the  same 
propensity  for  violence.  For  example,  just  last  month,  two  uni- 
formed U.S.  Customs  Patrol  officers  were  found  murdered  near 
Nogales,  Ariz.,  together  with  a  suspect  whom  they  had  killed  in  a 
gun  battle.  This  man  was  found  seated  at  the  wheel  of  a  truck  con- 
taining 200  pounds  of  marihuana  which  he  had  attempted  to  drive 
from  the  scene. 

Perhaps  one  of  the  most  extraordinary  investigations  illustrating 
the  scope  to  which  this  marihuana  traffic  has  grown  is  an  investiga- 
tion now  in  progress  in  Florida.  This  involves  a  group  of  successful 
professional  and  white  collar  financiers  and  their  associates  who 
refer  to  themselves  as  the  "Gainesville  Marihuana  Dealers  Associa- 
tion". The  organization  was  first  detected  by  the  Florida  Department 
of  Law  Enforcement.  In  November  of  last  year,  agents  of  our  Miami 
regional  headquarters  joined  with  the  State  officers  and  U.S.  Cus- 
toms and  Internal  Revenue  Service  agents  in  a  joint  task  force 
known  as  "Operation  Panhandle". 

Although  the  investigation  is  still  in  progress,  enough  has  been 
learned  to  permit  an  estimate  of  their  activities.  During  the  6 
months  in  which  the  task  force  has  been  operating,  this  group  has 
smuggled  approximately  80  tons  of  marihuana  into  the  United 
States.  The  drugs  obtained  through  supply  connections  in  Jamaica, 
and  occasionally  Colombia,  and  brought  into  predetermined  land- 
ing points  along  the  Florida  panhandle  by  vessels  carrying  multiton 
loads.  The  drugs  will  then  be  convoyed  by  as  many  as  10  to  15 
trucks  in  a  single  shipment  to  special  storage  areas  on  horse  farms 
or  orange  groves  owned  by  the  association  members.  During  de- 
liveries, countersurveillance  teams  are  established  by  the  violators 
in  watchtowers  along  the  approaches  to  the  storage  areas.  Later,  the 
marihuana  will  be  delivered  by  trucks,  carrying  one  to  several  tons, 
to  various  association  customers  in  any  of  the  32  affected  States. 

Thus  far,  the  investigation  has  resulted  in  the  arrest  of  19  indi- 
viduals, the  seizure  of  35  tons  of  marihuana  and  the  seizure  or 
impoundment  of  $1,250,000  of  association  funds.  A  brief  description 
of  several  other  representative  cases  is  attached  to  my  statement. 
In  one  of  these  a  153-foot  45-ton  freighter  was  used  in  an  attempt  to 
smuggle  3,700  pounds  of  hashish  from  Morocco. 

In  spite  of  the  fact  that  cases  of  this  size  and  complexity  have 
become  common,  large  segments  of  the  public  persist  in  the  view 
that  trafficking  in  marihuana  is  a  small  affair  indulged  in  by  juve- 


niles.  One  result  of  this  is  that  sentences  meted  out  to  large-scale 
marihuana  traffickers  are  frequently  inadequate. 

During  the  fall  of  last  year,  a  special  conspiracy  unit  comprised 
of  Federal,  State,  and  local  officers  was  formed  to  investigate  the 
activities  of  a  suspect  named  Martin  Williard  Houlton,  believed  to 
be  engaged  in  large-scale  marihuana  smuggling.  When  the  investi- 
gation was  finally  completed,  the  intelligence  indicated  that  Houlton, 
a  54-year-old  proprietor  of  a  Columbus,  N.  Mex.  motel  and  bar, 
maintained  a  small  air  force  of  20  high-speed  aircraft  which  aver- 
aged 18  smuggling  trips  per  week  between  Mexico  and  the  United 
States.  On  each  occasion,  some  500  to  700  pounds  of  marihuana 
would  be  brought  into  the  United  States  for  distribution. 

After  obtaining  advanced  court  authorization  for  a  wire  intercept 
information  was  at  last  obtained  of  the  plans  for  a  specific  smug- 
gling flight.  On  the  day  in  question,  a  DEA  agent  conducting 
aerial  surveillance  from  a  DEA  aircraft  was  able  to  monitor  the 
takeoff  of  three  of  Houlton's  aircraft,  which  were  later  observed  to 
land  and  load  suspected  contraband.  Aerial  surveillance  was  main- 
tained on  the  returning  flight  by  DEA  and  U.S.  Customs  aircraft 
and  shortly  after  the  planes  landed  on  a  small  airstrip  near  Colum- 
bus, Houlton  and  several  of  his  associates  were  arrested  in  posses- 
sion of  2,300  pounds  of  marihuana. 

In  February  of  this  year,  Houlton  was  found  guilty  by  a  New 
Mexico  State  court  and  given  an  18-month  suspended  sentence  and 
a  $1,000  fine.  Neither  he  nor  any  of  his  associates  who  were  con- 
victed with  him,  have  served  any  time  in  prison  for  their  extensive 
crimes. 

The  inescapable  conclusion  which  we  draw  from  the  examples  and 
statistics  which  I  have  cited  is  that  the  traffic  in,  and  abuse  of  mari- 
huana products  has  taken  a  more  serious  turn  in  the  last  2  or  3 
years  than  either  the  courts,  the  news  media,  or  the  public  is  aware. 
The  shift  is  clearly  toward  the  abuse  of  stronger,  more  dangerous 
forms  of  the  drug  which  renders  much  of  what  has  been  said  in 
the  1960's  about  the  harmlessness  of  its  use  obsolete. 

During  the  same  period,  the  organization  of  the  marihuana  traffic 
has  likewise  increased  in  both  size  and  complexity.  Thus,  the  way 
in  which  the  public,  the  judiciary,  and  oftentimes  the  law  enforce- 
ment community,  conceives  of  the  marihuana  problem  is  out  of  date, 
and  our  responses  to  it  are  similarly  inappropriate.  The  purpose 
which  I  hope  to  serve  in  appearing  before  you  this  morning  is  to 
help  bring  about  an  awareness  of  this  change. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  now  be  pleased  to  respond  to 
any  questions  which  you  or  other  committee  members  may  have. 

Mr.  Martin.  There  are  a  number  of  charts  and  tables  attached  to 
the  statement,  Mr.  Chairman;  may  the  charts  be  incorporated  into 
the  record? 

Senator  Eastland.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Mr.  Tartaglino,  you  have  prepared  a  number  of 
charts  you  wish  to  show  the  members  of  the  committee;  would  you 
want  to  run  through  them  quickly  ? 


pounds 


f 

^ 

co 

CO 
<3 

cm" 

CO 

■V.;  "■ 

'        v            ,  '.;                    •  'V'^-**    -v..^  -*-: 

CM 

CO 

""■'.'.     ' 

■",■       .      -    '.s,    ■    .■   ■■-■'■'.'•  '   ,     •■■-  • 

in 

,  „*,  ;'r-,  „ ,  ,„'    ;„;,    '.' 

'■'I".'"""-  ■     l,;jp-1  .'■>-'  ■•  ■,-,'  .-'    

co 
<* 

o 

' 

CO 

o 

CO 

C 

< 

"35 
« 

9 
U. 

SI 

< 

CO 

en 

5 

in 

CO 

vv  «■.».; ""^r"  ■"■" 

Marihuana 

Removed  from  Illicit  Market 

8 

CO 

pi 

J 

p 

z 

UJ 

cc 

LU 

O 

UJ 


£ 


Ir.w 


UJ 


CO    Si 


CO 


cc 

20. 
1-2 


§ 

u. 
O 

UJ 

§ 

UJ 

cc 


Mr.  Tartaglino.  The  first  chart  illustrates  the  illicit  marihuana 
and  the  second  chart  the  illicit  hashish  by  year  from  1969  to  1973, 
removed  by  Federal  agents  alone.  You  can  see  that  when  we  speak 
of  hashish,  seizures  have  increased  from  roughly  a  little  more  than 
2,000  pounds  in  1969  to  53,000  pounds  in  1973,  or  some  27  tons.  We 
have  gone  from  1  to  27  tons  in  a  very  short  space  of  time. 

In  marihuana  you  can  see  a  very  similar  increase.  We  have  gone 
to  some  375  tons  that  were  removed  in  1973. 

Mr.  Martin.  780,000  pounds? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Yes,  I  am  reducing  that  figure  to  tons;  and  that 
is  just  an  illustration  of  how  we  have  grown  from  35  tons  in  1969. 

I  might  add  that  as  recently  as  10  years  ago,  the  only  hashish 
that  was  found  in  the  United  States  was  probably  a  quarter  pound 
in  the  sole  of  some  seaman's  shoe  that  he  brought  over  for  his  own 
use.  I  recall  when  our  seizure  was  under  10  pounds  a  year.  But,  in 
1969  we  exceeded  1  ton,  and  of  course  last  year  we  have  gone  to  27 
tons. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  think  it  might  be  useful  to  let  people  know  what  1 
pound  of  hashish  can  do.  A  quart  of  whiskey  can  only  get  a  few 
people  drunk,  but  how  many  people  can  get  drunk  on  a  pound  of 
hashish  ? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Well,  I  would  have  to  go  into  a  discussion  of  the 
potency  of  it,  but  what  you  say  is  roughly  correct. 

This  third  chart  shows  the  arrests  for  cannabis  State,  local  and 
Federal;  the  yellow  is  Federal,  we  have  gone  from  333  arrests  in 
1969  to  over  1,500  last  year. 

You  can  see  local  enforcement  agencies  in  1972  arrested  almost  a 
quarter  of  a  million  people  in  the  United  States  for  cannabis  viola- 
tions, hashish  and  marihuana. 

In  the  map  that  you  see  before  you  we  have  tried  to  give  you  an 
illustration  of  generally  the  areas  that  are  affected  in  the  United 
States  today ;  the  purpie  arrows  illustrate  hashish ;  the  orange  illus- 
trates marihuana.  We  also  have  represented  there  on  this  chart  the 
largest  marihuana  seizure  on  record,  42  tons  in  Jamaica;  a  single 
seizure  of  marihuana  which  was  destined  for  the  United  States.  The 
largest  domestic  seizure  last  December,  20  tons  in  Florida.  In  hashish 
the  largest  domestic  seizure,  3,700  pounds,  almost  2  tons,  in  Miami, 
in  March  of  this  year.  The  largest  foreign  seizure,  12  tons  in  Karachi, 
Pakistan. 


10 


CO 
CO 


11 


12 

Senator  Eastland.  What  is  the  difference  between  marihuana  and 
hashish  ? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Hashish  is  derived  from  the  resin  of  the  mari- 
huana plant;  it  is  a  more  concentrated  form  of  marihuana. 

Mr.  Martin.  What  is  the  difference  in  strength? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  It  has  a  great  deal  more  potency.  We  measure 
marihuana  preparations  by  their  tetrahydrocannabinol  content.  Reg- 
ular manicured  marihuana  has  1  to  2  percent  tetrahydrocannabinol; 
hashish  has  10  to  15  percent.  So,  it  has  perhaps  seven  times  the 
strength. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Several  times  the  strength? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Seven  times  the  strength. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Seven  times  the  strength. 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Yes,  as  a  general  rule. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  then  when  it  comes  to  liquid  hashish,  I  believe 
Mr.  Bartels  has  testified  that  you  have  samples  going  up  to  90 
percent  THC  content? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  we  have  samples  running  all  the 
way  from  35  to  40  percent  THC  contents ;  and  it  is  possible  to  make 
it  up  to  90  percent.  That  is  relatively  new  on  the  market  and  cer- 
tainly a  most  dangerous  form. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  believe  Mr.  Bartels  also  testified  that  a  drop  of 
this  on  a  cigarette  is  enough  to  send  one  off  into  the  stratosphere — 
that  is,  90  percent  THC? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  that  is  the  maximum  content. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  a  few  questions — and  I  would  like  to  suggest 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  charts  and  maps  they  have  prepared,  or 
photographs  of  them,  be  received  for  the  record. 

Senator  Eastland.  As  exhibits,  yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much  for  your  testimony.  Mr. 
Tartaglino.  When  Mr.  Bartels,  your  Administrator,  was  here,  he  was 
testifying  on  the  Brotherhood  of  Eternal  Love;  that  is  an  organi- 
zation founded  by  Dr.  Timothy  Leary;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  remember  off-hand  how  many  tons  of  hashish 
the  Brotherhood  was  able  to  smuggle  into  the  United  States  before 
you  were  able  to  close  down  on  them? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  We  will  have  to  check  our  statistics,  it  was  in 
excess  of  20  tons. 

Senator  Thurmond.  How  much? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  In  excess  of  20  tons. 

Mr.  Martin.  40.000  pounds. 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  From  Mr.  Bartels'  previous  testimony,  and  from 
your  testimony  today  it  is  apparent  that  over  the  past  few  years 
smugglers  have  been  operating  with  much  more  massive  quantities 
of  marihuana  and  hashish? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct,  a  shift  of  such  massive  quantities 
that  they  are  going  from  aircraft  to  ships,  which  is  a  major  change. 

Mr.  Martin.  Now,  the  figures  in  the  charts  you  have  shown  us 
reflect  only  the  quantities  interdicted  by  the  Federal  law  enforce- 


13 

ment;  they  do  not  reflect  the  quantities  seized  by  local  and  State 
law  enforcement  authorities? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  They  reflect  the  quantities  seized  by  Federal 
law  enforcement  authorities  in  cooperation  with  foreign  authorities 
where  we  have  liaison  or  offices  abroad;  they  do  not  include  local 
seizures. 

Mr.  Martin.  If  you  included  local  seizures,  the  total  quantities 
removed  from  the  illicit  market  would  be  substantially  higher  for 
marihuana  and  hashish  than  the  figures  we  have  in  the  charts? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Absolutely. 

Mr.  Martin.  Now,  I  have  here  a  few  items  dealing  with  massive 
seizures  of  cannabis  in  recent  weeks,  in  Puerto  Rico  and  Mexico. 
On  March  23  San  Juan  reported  a  seizure  of  some  700  pounds  of 
marihuana  coming  from  Colombia;  and  there  is  a  second  item  from 
San  Juan,  dated  March  28,  which  speaks  about  the  seizure  of  almost 
8,000  pounds  of  marihuana,  $10  million  worth.  Do  you  have  a  record 
of  either  of  these  seizures? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  We  would  have  a  record  of  it,  but  I  don't  have 
it  with  me  here,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  But  you  would  not  have  a  record  of  seizures  made 
by  local  authorities? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  If  they  were  made  by  local  authorities,  we  may 
just  have  a  newspaper  item  we  collect  for  routine  information.  But 
if  it  was  a  local  authority,  we  would  not  have  that  in  our  statistics. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  I  would  simply  note  for  the  record  that  the 
third  item,  dated  Acapulco,  March  30 — these  items  all  fall  within  a 
week — reports  a  seizure  of  6V2  tons  of  marihuana,  13,000  pounds, 
by  the  Mexican  police.  That's  a  big  chunk  of  marihuana. 

Is  there  any  doubt  in  your  mind  that  the  United  States  was  the 
target  area  for  this  massive  seizure  of  marihuana  in  Acapulco? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind.  We  can  reasonably 
suppose  that  most  of  the  large  seizures  are  traditional  traffic  to  the 
United  States. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  commend  you  for 
arranging  these  hearings ;  and  I  want  to  express  my  appreciation  to 
the  witnesses  who  are  appearing  here,  too ;  I  believe  we  have  hearings 
set  for  the  16th  and  17th,  and  I  hope  I  can  attend  these  hearings. 
Today  I'm  tied  up  in  the  Armed  Services  and  we  scheduled  $9  bil- 
lion for  our  Armed  Forces;  I  ask  the  chairman  to  excuse  me  for 
that  reason.  But,  I  did  want  to  come  by  and  show  my  interest  in 
these  hearings,  they  are  extremely  important.  I  am  scheduled  to 
chair  these  hearings  on  the  20th,  and  I  am  looking  forward  to  that 
time,  too.  I  don't  know  of  any  subject  more  important,  especially 
affecting  our  young  people  than  this  question  of  drugs. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  a  few  questions  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  Mr. 
Tartaglino,  about  your  chart  dealing  with  the  increase  in  cannabis- 
related  arrests.  The  chart  shows  far  fewer  arrests  by  the  Federal 
authorities  than  by  the  local  authorities.  Would  this  be  because  the 
Federal  authorities  concentrate  on  the  large-scale  smuggling  oper- 
ators, while  most  of  the  arrests  made  by  local  authorities  have  to 
do  with  small-scale  possession? 


33-371   O  -  74 


14 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  We  had  a  criteria  that  we  utilized,  and  we  set 
our  sights  at  large-scale  interstate  traffic,  and  international  traffic. 
We  do  that  in  coordination  with  local  and  State  authorities.  So, 
your  answer  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Now,  in  terms  of  the  actual  quantities  of  cannabis 
seized  or  interdicted,  the  Federal  authorities  probably  seized  far 
more  from  the  illicit  market  than  the  local  authorities? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  it  true  that  the  local  law  enforcement  authorities 
in  most  parts  of  the  country  are  less  rigorous  than  they  used  to  be 
in  arresting  young  people  who  have  a  joint  or  two  of  marihuana  in 
their  possession;  do  you  have  any  impression  on  that? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  t  don't  believe  I  could  accurately  answer  that 
question. 

Mr.  Martin.  Eight.  Would  it  be  reasonable  to  infer  that  the  tre- 
mendous increase  in  cannabis  arrests  by  State  and  local  authorities, 
tied  in  with  the  figures  in  your  own  charts,  points  to  a  sharp  increase 
in  marihuana  and  hashish  consumption  in  our  country? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  There  is  no  question  about  that. 

Mr.  Martin.  Could  this  increase  in  cannabis  interdictions  por- 
trayed in  your  charts  be  the  result,  at  least  in  part,  of  improved 
enforcement  capabilities? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  I  think  we  can  say  that  there  is  increased  awareness 
by  local,  State,  and  Federal  enforcement,  of  the  dangers. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  have  more  men? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  We  have  more  men  than  we  had  4,  or  5  years  ago. 

Mr.  Martin.  Better  technology? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Better  technology;  we  have  more  individuals 
involved  in  this  war;  we  have  better  State-Federal  programs  in 
metropolitan  enforcement  groups  throughout  the  United  States; 
task  forces,  local,  State,  and  Federal. 

Mr.  Martin.  But  you  don't  believe  that  the  tremendous  increase 
can  be  explained  entirely  on  the  basis  of  improved  enforcement  ca- 
pability ? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Absolutely  not. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  note  in  table  No.  6  attached  to  your  statement  that 
interdiction  of  heroin  went  down  from  1,541  pounds  in  1971  to  just 
over  1,000  pounds  in  1972,  and  483  pounds  in  1973.  This  isn't  because 
you  slackened  your  efforts  against  heroin? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  No,  we  feel  that  we  have  made  some  inroads 
in  the  heroin  traffic.  I  think  that  the  seizures  that  have  been  made, 
and  the  recent  reduction  in  seizures  reflect  a  decrease  in  the  traffic. 
I  will  have  to  develop  this  more.  I  think  it  is  directly  related  to  a  lot 
of  cooperation  overseas,  better  groups  in  the  United  States  working 
on  it,  increased  manpower,  increased  resources,  et  cetera.  We  are  in 
our  26th,  or  28th  month  of  what  we  refer  to  cautiously  as  a  heroin 
shortage.  There  definitely  is  a  heroin  shortage  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Martin.  Generally  speaking,  the  reduction  in  the  amount 
of  heroin  interdiction  more  or  less  corresponds  to  what  we  know 
about  the  decrease  in  actual  heroin  use  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  the  next  question  is,  wouldn't  this  reinforce 


15 

the  assumption  that  the  tremendous  increase  in  the  interdiction  of 
marihuana  and  hashish  does  in  fact  correspond  to  the  amount  actually 
consumed  ? 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  I  think  our  understanding  is  that  the  increased 
seizures  mean  that  there  is  a  lot  more  coming  in,  yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Right.  Those  are  the  only  questions  I  have. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  have  three  attachments  covering  specific 
cases,  I  think  they  should  go  in  the  record,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Eastland.  The  attachments  will  be  received  for  the  record. 

[The  material  referred  to  follows:] 

Hashish  Smuggling:  East  Coast  Surveillance 

On  March  1,  1973,  the  Air  Police  at  Orly  Airport,  Paris,  France  advised 
DEA  that  two  individuals  had  been  observed  carrying  $297,000  in  American 
currency.  An  investigation  had  been  initiated  on  Donald  and  John  Griffin 
who  arrived  in  the  United  States  from  France  in  December  1972  and  who 
were  planning  to  return  to  Europe  via  the  SS  Michelangelo  accompanied 
by  four  automobiles.  Further  investigation  identified  these  individuals  as 
being  active  in  the  Miami,  Florida  area  where  they  had  purchased  two  luxury 
imported  automobiles,  a  Maserati  and  a  Lamborghini  for  $33,850.  Both  ve- 
hicles were  paid  for  in  five  and  ten  dollar  bills  taken  from  a  clear  plastic 
bag  issued  by  a  national  hotel  chain.  The  subjects'  motel  was  located  and  it 
was  ascertained  that  they  and  other  accomplices  had  rented  a  30  ft.  sailboat 
at  North  Palm  Beach,  Florida  subsequently  returning  that  boat  for  a  larger 
vessel.  Nine  months  later  the  same  group  attempted  to  rent  another  sailboat 
but  were  discouraged  by  the  company's  inquiries  as  to  their  purpose  in  rent- 
ing. Alerted  by  the  Marine  Company,  DEA  located  the  two  subjects  reg- 
istered at  a  Juno  Beach,  Florida  motel  under  assumed  names.  DEA  surveil- 
lance established  that  the  two  subjects  were  subsequently  joined  by  two 
additional  subjects.  Three  of  the  subjects  rented  a  22  ft.  motor  home  and 
spent  two  days  driving  through  Northern  Florida  and  Southern  Georgia. 
DEA  vehicle  and  aerial  surveillance  was  maintained  and  they  were  observed 
examining  the  Atlantic  Coast  and  the  St.  Johns  River  while  using  naviga- 
tional charts. 

Upon  returning  in  the  motor  home  the  subjects  conducted  numerous  forays 
out  of  their  two  motels  using  the  motor  home  and  a  rented  automobile. 
Using  the  auto,  two  subjects  visited  a  boat  yard  and  then  proceeded  to  a 
wooded  section  adjoining  the  inter-coastal  waterway  where  they  remained  in 
the  woods  for  a  brief  period  and  then  joined  their  cohorts  in  the  motor  home 
several  miles  away.  Later  the  same  day  all  four  subjects  revisited  the  wooded 
site  and  subsequently  two  of  them  went  to  the  boat  yard  they  had  visited 
earlier  and  were  observed  proceeding  south  in  the  inter-coastal  waterway  in 
an  18-ft.  motorboat.  At  midnight  the  motorboat  was  observed  returning 
toward  the  boat  yard  with  its  running  lights  off.  The  motor  home  was  sur- 
veilled  with  the  four  subjects  as  it  drove  to  the  wooded  site  along  the  inter- 
coastal  waterway  where  it  parked  for  a  short  while  then  proceeded  to  Ft. 
Pierce,  Florida  for  the  night.  The  following  day  the  motor  home  was  driven 
to  Palm  Beach  Gardens,  Florida  where  the  four  subjects  registered  at  a 
motel  and  were  soon  joined  by  a  fifth  conspirator  and  subsequently  by  a 
sixth  conspirator,  a  known  narcotic  violator  from  New  York.  The  mobile 
home  and  three  subjects  proceeded  to  Jacksonville,  Florida  later  in  the  day 
and  registered  at  a  motel  where  they  were  joined  by 'the  other  three  subjects 
who  drove  in  a  rented  automobile.  The  rented  car  was  then  exchanged  for 
another  vehicle. 

The  following  day  the  New  York  violator  departed  for  New  York  via  com- 
mercial aircraft  and  for  the  next  two  days  DEA  agents  maintained  aerial 
and  vehicle  surveillance  on  the  five  subjects  as  they  proceeded  north.  During 
the  course  of  the  surveillance,  agents  seized  traces  of  hashish  from  one  of 
their  recently  vacated  motel  rooms.  During  the  evening  of  October  29th 
through  October  30th  the  subjects  were  under  constant  surveillance  as  they 
operated  out  of  their  Annapolis,   Maryland  motel.   They  placed   foreign   tele- 


16 

phone  calls  and  recontacted  the  New  York  City  narcotic  violator  and  also 
telephoned  a  local  resident.  The  rented  auto  was  spotted  from  the  air  at  a 
local  farmhouse  which  had  been  telephoned  earlier.  The  subjects  attempted 
counter-surveillance  techniques  as  the  car  and  motor  home  established  con- 
tact and  moved  to  the  farmhouse  area.  When  the  motor  home  stopped  to  let 
traffic  pass,  surveilling  agents  arrested  the  three  occupants.  The  interior  of 
the  motor  home  was  pungent  with  the  odor  of  marihuana  substance  and 
1183  lbs.  of  hashish  and  46  lbs.  of  hashish  oil  were  seized.  DEA  agents 
then  drove  the  motor  home  to  the  farmhouse  where  they  were  greeted  by 
four  additional  individuals  and  two  of  the  subjects  who  were  unaware  of 
the  fact  that  occupants  of  the  motor  home  were  federal  agents.  Arrests  were 
made  and  an  automatic  weapon,  additional  hashish  and  marihuana,  and  two 
Citizen's  Band  radios  were  seized. 

Follow-up  investigation  established  a  smuggling  conspiracy  involving  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,  England,  Australia,  and  South  Africa  who  con- 
trolled a  fleet  of  yachts  operating  out  of  France  and  Spain  via  Lebanon  to 
the  United  States.  It  was  established  that  over  3,000  lbs.  of  hashish  had  been 
smuggled  into  the  United  States  by  this  ring  on  four  occasions.  Five  subjects, 
in  addition  to  the  eight  arrested,  have  been  identified  and  are  under  active 
investigation  at  this  time. 

Hashish  Smuggling  From  Pakistan 

In  November  1973,  a  confidential  informant  reported  to  DEA  agents  at 
Karachi,  Pakistan,  that  an  individual,  later  identified  as  Mohammed  Sultan, 
had  approached  him  seeking  assistance  in  locating  someone  who  would 
smuggle  one  to  two  tons  of  hashish  into  the  United  States.  Following  instruc- 
tions of  the  DEA  agents,  the  informant  told  Sultan  that  he  knew  a  U.S. 
diplomat  who  was  being  transferred  back  to  the  U.S.  and  would  probably  be 
willing  to  send  the  hashish  with  his  personal  effects. 

On  November  6,  1973  a  DEA  agent  was  introduced  to  Sultan  as  being  the 
diplomat.  Sultan  accepted  the  agent  and  stated  that  he  wished  to  ship  1,000 
kilograms  of  hashish.  Sultan  expected  the  deal  to  bring  a  profit  of  $1,000,000 
of  which  Sultan  was  to  get  half,  with  $400,000  going  to  the  Agent  and  $100,000 
to  the  informant.  The  agent  said  he  would  be  flying  to  the  U.S.  in  a  day  or 
two  after  packing  his  household  effects.  Sultan  then  said  the  agent  could 
make  an  additional  $40,000  by  taking  100  kilograms  with  him  on  the  aircraft. 

On  November  8,  1973,  Sultan  gave  the  agent  $500  advance  toward  expenses. 
At  this  same  meeting  Sultan  asked  if  the  agent  could  take  150  kilograms  of 
hashish  on  the  plane  instead  of  100  kilograms,  explaining  that  someone  would 
meet  the  agent  in  New  York  and  pay  him  $60,000  for  the  hashish.  The  agent 
accepted. 

On  November  15,  1973,  Sultan  introduced  the  agent  to  his  partner  Makil 
Ashraf  and  to  Salim  Hraoui  who  was  to  be  the  recipient  in  New  York.  On 
November  18,  1973,  the  agent  again  met  with  Sultan,  Ashraf,  and 
Hraoui  and  arrangements  were  made  for  delivery  of  two  tons  of  hashish  to 
the  American  Consulate,  ostensibly  for  inclusion  with  the  agent's  household 
effects.  Later  the  same  day  Sultan  called  the  agent  and  said  he  was  unable 
to  locate  a  truck.  The  agent  then  obtained  a  Consulate  truck  and  drove  it, 
as  instructed  by  Sultan,  to  the  Pakistan  Textile  Plant  at  Karachi,  where  it 
was  loaded  with  two  tons  of  hashish.  This  same  date,  Sultan  delivered  to 
the  agent  $2,500  additional  expense  money.  The  hashish  was  subsequently 
turned  over  to  Pakistan  Sea  Customs. 

On  November  19,  1973,  the  agent  proceeded  to  the  Pakistan  Textile  Factory 
at  Sultan's  instruction,  and  picked  up  seven  suitcases  containing  151  kilo- 
grams of  hashish.  The  agent  retained  a  representative  sample  of  approxi- 
mately seven  kilograms,  for  delivery  to  New  York,  and  turned  the  balance 
over  to  Pakistan  Sea  Customs. 

On  November  20,  1973,  the  agent  arrived  in  New  York  and  met  Salim 
Hraoui.  When  the  agent  told  Hraoui  the  hashish  was  ready  for  delivery 
Hraoui  paid  the  agent  $35,000.  Hraoui  was  arrested  as  he  went  to  a  vehicle 
to  obtain  the  hashish. 

On  the  night  of  November  22,  1973,  Mohammed  Sultan  was  arrested  in 
Karachi.  He  subsequently  admitted  that  he  had  an  additional  quantity  of 
about  10  tons  of  hashish  concealed  in  55  gallon  drums  at  the  Pakistan  Textile 


17 

Factory.    DEA    agents   and   Pakistan    Customs    officers   went    to    the    factory, 
found  and  seized  the  10  tons  of  hashish. 

This  operation  removed  over  12  tons  of  hashish  from  the  market  and  re- 
sulted in  the  arrest  of  the  principal  defendants.  Prosecution  is  pending  as  of 
April  29,  1974. 

"Sea  Trader" 

During  February  1974,  information  was  developed  which  indicated  that  a 
group  of  individuals  had  been  smuggling  tons  of  marihuana  from  the  Carib- 
bean into  the  United  States,  including  New  York,  Louisiana,  and  Florida. 
Information  was  also  developed  that  this  group  had  been  planning  to  bring 
a  large  load  of  hashish  from  Morocco.  Intelligence  indicated  that  the  load 
would  be  7,000  pounds  and  would  be  transported  on  a  vessel  later  identified 
as  the  "Sea  Trader."  The  "Sea  Trader"  is  a  153  foot,  45  ton  gross  freighter, 
registered  out  of  Panama.  The  "Sea  Trader"  was  believed  to  be  in  Morocco, 
departure  date  unknown,  and  attempts  to  locate  were  initiated,  and  alerts 
were  posted  in  the  continental  United  States. 

On  April  9,  1974,  information  was  received  that  the  "Sea  Trader"  was 
dead  in  the  water  with  engine  trouble  at  a  point  approximately  150  miles 
south-east  of  Bermuda. 

DBA  requested  the  assistance  of  the  U.S.  Coast  Guard  who  dispatched  a 
long  range  search  plane  to  locate  "Sea  Trader"  and  conduct  a  search  for 
any  vessel  enroute  to  contact  "Sea  Trader"  and  attempt  to  offload  the  hashish. 

The  U.S.  Coast  Guard  Cutter  "Gallatin"  was  dispatched  and  proceeded  at 
the  fastest  possible  speed  to  attempt  to  take  the  vessel  in  tow  to  the  nearest 
U.S.  Port. 

On  April  10,  1974,  Coast  Guard  Cutter  "Gallatin"  arrived  on  scene  and 
relieved  sea  going  Tug  Robin  VIII  of  the  tow.  "Sea  Trader"  would  not  agree 
to  be  towed  to  the  nearest  U.S.  port  but  agreed  to  have  "Gallatin"  tow  "Sea 
Trader"  to  protected  Bahamian  waters. 

On  April  12,  1974,  "Sea  Trader"  was  anchored  within  the  3-mile  limit  of 
Bahamian  waters  and  two  other  boats  approached  to  assist  the  "Sea  Trader." 

"Sea  Trader"  was  boarded  by  Drug  Enforcement  Administration  and  Ba- 
hamian authorities  and  subsequent  search  revealed  70  bags  containing  ap- 
proximately 3,700  pounds  of  hashish.  Nine  subjects  were  arrested  and  two 
vessels  were  seized  by  the  Bahamian  authorities. 

The  contraband  and  subjects  were  returned  to  Nassau  for  criminal  pro- 
ceedings. DEA  will  initiate  conspiracy  indictments  in  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Your  charts  and  tables,  sir,  appear  to  indicate  that 
the  rate  of  increase  of  hashish  is  substantially  greater  than  the  rate 
of  increase  of  marihuana.  For  instance,  over  a  5-year  period  the 
marihuana  increase  is  roughly  10  times;  the  hashish  increase  is  22 
times.  Do  you  take  that  as  an  indication  that  hashish  is  in  some  de- 
gree replacing  marihuana,  that  the  user  is  starting  out  with  pot 
and  graduating  to  hash? 

MARIHUANA  AND  HASHISH  REMOVED  FROM  ILLICIT  MARKET  BY  FEDERAL  AGENTS  (IN  POUNDS) 


Calendar  year- 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

Marihuana: 

Total 

73, 108 

185, 096 

308, 048 

514,812 

782, 033 

Domestic  (DEA) 

9,924 

59,  840 

3,344 

9,092 
148, 772 
26, 422 

21, 380 

201,  558 

85, 110 

51,897 

365,  421 

97, 494 

51,379 

Ports  and  borders  (Customs,  INS)... 
DEA/foreign  cooperative. 

489,  961 
240,  693 

Hashish: 

Total 

2,247 

7,256 

22, 188 

30, 094 

53, 333 

Domestic  (DEA) 

239 

1,602 

406 

234 
3,811 
3,211 

882 
6,900 
14,  406 

1,151 
8,754 
20, 189 

641 

Ports  and  borders  (Customs,  INS)... 

7,235 
45, 457 

18 

OPIUM,  HEROIN,  AND  COCAINE  REMOVAL  FROM  ILLICIT  MARKET  BY  FEDERAL  AGENTS  AND  ARRESTS 


1969 


Calendar  year— 


1970 


1971 


1972 


1973 


Total  domestic  removal  (in  pounds): 

Opium 25  30  58 

Heroin . 427  691  1,541 

Cocaine 208  730  602 

Total  DEA/foreign  cooperative  seizures 
(in  pounds): 

Opium 1,590  1,360  1,440 

Morphine  base 706  811  2,271 

Heroin 395  301  937 

Cocaine 35  75  346 

DEA  Federal  arrests: 

Heroin 

Cocaine >950  » 1,104  « 1,923 

Other  narcotics 

State  and  local  arrests:  * 

Heroin  and  cocaine... 67,945  108,427  114,573 


66 

1,036 

916 

120 

483 

1,347 

17,  379 

2,104 

2,416 

801 

50,  746 

2,262 

821 

1,015 

2,159 

1,231 

63 

2,169 

1,645 

47 

92.364  .... 

>  Reported  as  narcotics  arrests. 
2  Source:  Uniform  crime  report. 


QUANTITIES  OF  DRUGS  SEIZED' 
[In  kilograms)1 


Calendar  year— 


1968 


1969 


1970 


Cannabis: 

Herb 1,471,408 

Resin 37,253 

Opium.. 40,153 

Morphine 813 

Heroin 546 

Cocaine 158 


1, 825, 769 

3,  073, 638 

32, 237 

41,574 

40, 729 

29,  308 

846 

543 

463 

567 

152 

460 

'Source:  25th  Session,  Commission  on  Narcotic  Drugs  (Sept.  22, 1972). 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  I  definitely  think  so,  I  agree  with  that. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Tartaglino. 

Mr.  Tartaglino.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Dr.  Harvey  Powelson  will  be  our  next  witness. 

Senator  Eastland.  Identify  yourself  for  the  record,  sir. 

TESTIMONY     OF     DR.     HARVEY     POWELSON,     UNIVERSITY     OF 
CALIFORNIA  AT  BERKELEY 

Dr.  Powelson.  I  am  Dr.  Harvey  Powelson,  from  the  University 
of  California  at  Berkeley.  I  want  to  thank  the  chairman  and  the 
committee  for  having  me  here  today,  I  am  honored  and  pleased. 

Mr.  Martin.  Before  you  read  your  statement,  Dr.  Powelson,  I 
would  like  to  ask  you  a  few  questions  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing your  qualifications.  Now,  you  have  a  degree  in  medicine  and  a 
degree  in  psychiatry  from  the  University  of  California? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  have  been  a  practicing  psychiatrist  since  1951? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  held  a  clinical  appointment  on  the  faculty  of 


19 

the  University  of   California   Medical   School   until   you   resigned 
from  the  faculty  last  year? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  have  also  served  on  the  faculty  of  the  Psycho- 
analytic Institute  in  San  Francisco? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  served  as  director  of  the  psychiatric  department 
of  Kaiser  Hospital  in  Oakland,  Calif.,  for  8  years? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That's  correct.' 

Mr.  Martin.  You  are  currently  serving  as  a  research  psychiatrist 
at  the  University  of  California  at  Berkeley  ? 

Dr.  Powelson.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  are  also  currently  serving  as  mental  health  offi- 
cer of  Calaveras  County  ? 

Dr.  Powelson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  served  from  1964  to  1972  as  director  of  the 
psychiatric  department  of  the  Student  Health  Service  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  California  at  Berkeley? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  All  right,  Dr.  Powelson,  will  you  proceed  with  your 
prepared  statement.  The  mike  is  not  working  too  well,  so,  if  you 
would  keep  your  voice  level  up  it  would  be  helpful. 

Dr.  Powelson.  In  1965,  I  was  chief  of  the  Department  of  Psy- 
chiatry in  the  Student  Health  Service  at  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia in  Berkeley.  It  was  the  first  year  of  the  student  riots.  It  was 
also  the  first  year  that  hallucinogens  were  becoming  widely  used 
and  I,  as  the  person  responsible  for  mental  health  on  that  campus, 
was  vigorously  involved  in  the  debate  about  psilocibin,  LSD,  and 
mescaline. 

In  the  spring  of  that  year  a  reporter  for  the  Daily  Californian, 
the  student  newspaper,  asked  for  my  opinion  on  marihuana.  At  that 
time  I  lacked  any  direct  experience  as  a  physician  with  marihuana 
users.  The  medical  literature  was  sparse,  but  in  general  seemed  to 
be  saying  that  there  was  no  proof  of  long  term  harmful  effects  from 
marihuana.  I  summarized  this  for  the  reporter  and  said  there  was 
no  proof  of  harm  and  that  it  probably  should  be  legalized  and  con- 
trolled. In  general,  this  view  met  with  approval  from  most  of  the 
students  and  most  of  my  professional  colleagues. 

In  1965,  the  use  of  marihuana  spread  throughout  the  Berkeley 
campus.  Simultaneously  its  use  was  spreading  to  all  the  colleges 
and  universities  across  the  country.  From  the  campus  communities 
it  spread  at  an  accelerating  rate  through  the  surrounding  commu- 
nities. By  now  its  use  is  subject  to  no  age,  social  or  geographic 
barriers. 

My  place  of  observation  was  unique.  I  was  there  at  the  beginning 
and  in  my  work  I  was  actively  involved  with  students  not  only  as 
a  psychiatrist  but  as  a  teacher,  and  as  a  participant  in  a  4-year 
research  project  studying  maturation  and  growth,  in  college  stu- 
dents. In  addition,  I  was  routinely  meeting  with  deans  and  admin- 
istrators who  were  dealing  with  the  drug  problem  and  the  students 


20 

who  were  in  academic  and/or  disciplinary  difficulties  as  a  consequence 
of  the  use  of  marihuana  and  its  derivatives. 

Most  importantly,  I  was  in  daily  contact  with  the  constant  flow 
of  students  through  the  student  health  service  and  the  psychiatric 
clinic  and  hospital. 

During  the  period  I  am  speaking  of,  from  1965  to  1972,  the  clinic 
saw  approximately  2,000  to  3,000  students  a  year  as  outpatients  and 
about  150  to  200  students  a  year  who  were  mentally  ill  enough  to 
be  hospitalized.  Naturally,  I  didn't  see  all  these  students  but  the 
people  who  ministered  to  them  were  all  under  my  supervision.  I 
personally  interviewed  about  200  students  a  year;  many  were  seen 
for  a  single  hour,  others  were  seen  as  intensively  as  2  to  3  times  a 
week  for  varying  lengths  of  time  up  to  and  including  5  years. 

During  this  time,  from  1965  to  1972,  an  increasing  number  of 
patients  were  using  marihuana.  My  best  guess,  based  on  surveys 
and  impressions  is  that  more  than  90  percent  used  it  at  one  time  or 
another  in  college.  More  than  50  percent  used  it  "socially",  approxi- 
mately 1  or  2  times  a  week;  and  about  10  percent  were  heavy  users, 
at  least  1  time  daily. 

My  first  important  shift  in  thinking  occurred  as  a  result  of  ob- 
servations made  during  psychotherapy  with  a  young  man,  S.,  who 
was  bright  enough  to  be  getting  his  law  degree  and  Ph.  D.  simul- 
taneously and  competent  enough  to  be  learning  to  fly  and  deal  in 
real  estate  at  the  same  time.  As  we  proceeded  in  our  work  together, 
I  came  to  know  S.'s  way  of  thinking;  how  he  thought.  Most  of  us 
do  this  without  thinking  about  it.  All  of  us  come  to  know  to  some 
degree  the  way  our  friends  and  colleagues  think.  In  therapy,  the 
opportunity  to  hear  someone  think  out  loud  about  a  problem  im- 
portant to  him  maximizes  the  opportunity  to  come  to  know  how  he 
uses  or  misuses  logic,  remember  clearly  or  not  at  all  does  or  does 
not  exercise  good  judgment  about  his  own  thinking  and  whether  or 
not  he  is  able  to  know  his  own  feelings.  We  had  made  enough  head- 
way so  that  S.  had  begun  to  be  able  to  observe  and  understand  his 
own  thinking.  Periodically  we  had  hours,  I  was  seeing  him  twice 
weekly,  when  his  thinking  became  mushy.  If  I  tried  to  follow  him, 
my  head  began  to  spin.  When  I  protested  that  he'd  become  impos- 
sible to  listen  to,  he  would  argue  that  his  own  experience  was  that  he 
was  thinking  more  clearly,  more  insightfully,  than  ever.  On  one 
such  occasion,  he  mentioned  that  he  had  been  to  a  party  2  nights 
before  where  he'd  had  particularly  good  "grass".  In  Berkeley,  in 
1968,  that  was  not  a  particularly  memorable  remark,  but  we  thought 
there  might  be  some  connection  with  his  thinking.  This  same  series 
of  events  occurred  often  enough  so  that  I  finally  was  able  at  times  to 
post  diet  that  S.  had  had  some  "mind-expanding  drug",  usually 
marihuana. 

S.,  because  he  was  a  good  observer,  helped  show  me  another  aspect 
of  the  thinking  disorder  I'm  describing.  Central  to  his  difficulties 
was  a  paranoid  stance  toward  the  world.  By  this  I  mean  a  style 
of  thinking  characterized  by  a  constant  suspicion  that  one  is  being 


21 

controlled,  for  example,  by  the  establishment,  the  system,  et  cetera; 
and  simultaneously  a  constant  unwitting  search  for  people  and 
situations  which  will  do  just  that;  drugs,  demagogues.  If  this  man- 
ner of  thinking  is  carried  further,  it  blends  into  the  condition 
usually  called  paranoia.  Here  the  subject  is  controlled  by  voices, 
God,  or  whatever,  and  at  the  same  time  he  is  very  often  "against  his 
will"  being  controlled  by  a  State  hospital  or  jail.  S.  was  forever 
talking  about  his  search  for  something  or  someone  he  could  trust. 
He  very  frequently  clutched  to  himself  people  who  were  totally  un- 
trustworthy and  hurt  and  rejected  others  who  manifestedly  ad- 
mired and  liked  him. 

When  he  had  used  marihuana,  his  thinking  became  more  paranoid, 
that  is,  he  became  more  mistrustful  of  me,  for  instance,  and  at  the 
same  time  he  became  more  wily  so  that  he  talked  glibly,  using  cliches, 
theories,  and  "insights",  all  to  avoid  noticing  concretely  and  imme- 
diately whatever  he  was  really  doing  and  feeling  in  his  relationship 
with  me,  as  well  as  his  relationships  outside.  In  short,  the  patho- 
logical part  of  his  thinking  was  exaggerated  in  two  ways,  he  was 
more  suspicious,  et  cetera,  and  he  was  more  adept  at  fooling  himself 
about  what  he  was  up  to,  while  simultaneously  maintaining  how 
"aware",  "in  touch"  and  "loving"  he  was. 

S.  continued  in  therapy  but  also  continued  to  use  marihuana  and 
hashish.  Toward  the  end  of  his  therapy,  I  had  decided  that  so 
long  as  he  muddled  his  thinking  in  this  way,  there  was  no  use  con- 
tinuing. He,  however,  suffered  a  fatal  accident — as  a  result  of  an 
error  in  judgment — before  his  therapy  actually  terminated. 

As  I  was  becoming  familiar  with  these  effects  of  marihuana  on  S., 
I  gradually  learned  to  pick  up  signs  when  they  were  more  subtle. 
I  came  to  observe  the  same  changes  in  others,  that  is,  that  mari- 
huana exacerbated  the  pathological  aspects  of  their  thinking. 

These  observations  were  made  before  controlled  studies  began  to 
give  us  clues  as  to  the  nature  of  the  mental  changes  taking  place 
which  could  explain  these  phenomena.  The  committee  has  undoubt- 
edly heard  or  will  hear  of  the  studies  by  the  Hollister  group  at 
Stanford  on  what  they  call  "temporal  disintegration"  which  seem  to 
be  changes  secondary  to  the  loss  of  immediate  memory  and  the  loss 
of  an  accurate  time  sense.  There  are  also  corroborating  studies  from 
Utah,  clinical  studies  by  Kolansky  and  Moore,  X-ray  studies  by 
Campbell  in  England,  and  a  study  on  students  by  Schwarz  at  the 
University  of  British  Columbia  to  cite  a  few  of  the  most  relevant 
studies  made  on  subjects  comparable  to  the  ones  I'm  describing. 

Following  the  above  described  observations,  I  saw  the  same  pic- 
ture more  and  more  frequently.  The  essence  of  the  pattern  is  that 
with  small  amounts  of  marihuana,  approximately  three  joints  of 
street  grade,  memory  and  time  sense  are  interfered  with.  With 
regular  usage  the  active  principles  cause  more  and  more  distorted 
thinking.  The  user's  field  of  interest  gets  narrower  and  narrower  as 
he  focuses  his  attention  on  immediate  sensation.  At  the  same  time 
his  dependence  and  tolerance  is  growing.  As  he  uses  more  of  the 


22 

drug,  his  ability  to  think  sequentially  diminishes.  Without  his 
awareness,  he  becomes  less  and  less  adequate  in  areas  where  judg- 
ment, memory  and  logic  are  necessary.  As  this  happens,  he  depends 
more  and  more  on  pathological  patterns  of  thinking.  Ultimately  all 
heavy  users,  that  is  daily  users,  develop  a  paranoid  way  of  thinking. 

After  I  had  become  aware  of  the  generality  of  this  sequence  an- 
other reporter  from  the  Daily  Californian  interviewed  me  to  see  if 
my  opinions  had  changed  in  the  interim.  In  the  course  of  that  inter- 
view, I  realized  in  a  concrete  and  explicit  way  that  they  had.  The 
headline  read,  "Psychiatrist  says  pot  smokers  can't  think  straight". 
This  time  the  response  of  the  community  and  colleagues  was  not 
so  approving.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  questioning  the  claims  of 
marihuana  users  leads  to  much  more  anger,  vilification,  and  charac- 
ter assassination  than  does  the  opposite  stance. 

In  subsequent  years  in  Berkeley,  both  at  the  clinic  and  in  my 
private  practice,  I  have  observed  the  long-term  effects  of  cannabis. 
Originally,  my  observation  was  that  students  who  had  "dropped 
out"  into  the  "drug  scene"  and  were  attempting  to  return,  were  find- 
ing it  difficult  if  not  impossible.  A  frequent  story  is  that  the  young 
person  has  become  aware  that  the  life  he's  been  leading  is  unsatis- 
factory and  unproductive.  He  then  stops  drugs  for  6  months,  or  so, 
and  reenters  the  university.  When  he  returns  to  school,  however, 
he  finds  that  he  can't  think  clearly  and  that,  in  ways  he  finds  difficult 
to  describe,  he  can't  use  his  mind  in  the  way  he  did  before.  Such 
people  also  seem  to  be  aware  that  they  have  lost  their  will_  some- 
place, that  to  do  something,  to  do  anything,  requires  a  gigantic 
effort — in  short,  they  have  become  will-less,  what  we  call  anomic. 
An  irony  here  is  that  they  have  now  achieved  the  freedom  they 
sought.  They  need  an  external  director.  They  are  ripe  for  a 
demagogue. 

The  changes  in  the  capacity  to  think  in  some  subjects  are  long 
lasting  if  not  permanent.  One  of  my  original,  1967,  subjects  was  a 
member  of  the  junior  faculty.  He  "dropped  out"  and  used  hashish 
exclusively  for  18  months  in  daily  doses.  When  he  realized  that  it 
was  interfering  with  his  physical  coordination  he  stopped  all  drugs. 
Two  years  subsequent  to  this  he  returned  to  the  University.  He 
found  that  he  could  not  do  mathematics  at  a  level  which  he  had 
found  possible  before;  3V2  years  later,  his  conviction  was  that  the 
change  was  permanent.  My  own  observations  of  him  and  other  such 
gifted  people  have  led  me  to  the  same  conclusion,  that  is,  that  the 
damage  may  be  permanent. 

My  stance  toward  marihuana  has  shifted  to  the  extent  that  I  now 
think  it  is  the  most  dangerous  drug  we  must  contend  with  for  the 
following  reasons: 

(1)  Its  early  use  is  beguiling.  It  gives  the  illusion  of  feeling  good. 
The  user  is  not  aware  of  the  beginning  loss  of  mental  functioning. 
I  have  never  seen  an  exception  to  the  observation  that  marihuana 
impairs  the  user's  ability  to  judge  the  loss  of  his  own  mental 
functioning. 


23 

(2)  After  1  to  3  years  of  continuous  use  the  ability  to  think  has 
become  so  impaired  that  pathological  forms  of  thinking  begin  to 
take  over  the  entire  thought  process. 

(3)  Chronic  heavy  use  leads  to  paranoid  thinking. 

(4)  Chronic  heavy  use  leads  to  deterioration  in  body  and  mental 
functioning  which  is  difficult  and  perhaps  impossible  to  reverse. 

(5)  For  reasons  which  I  can't  elucidate  here,  its  use  leads  to  delu- 
sional system  of  thinking  which  has  inherent  in  it  the  strong  need  to 
seduce  and  proselytize  others.  I  have  rarely  seen  a  regular  marihuana 
user  who  wasn't  actively  "pushing". 

As  these  people  move  into  government,  the  professions,  and  the 
media,  it  is  not  surprising  that  they  continue  as  "pushers",  thus 
continuously  adding  to  the  confusion  that  this  committee  is  com- 
mitted to  ameliorate. 

That's  the  end  of  my  formal  statement.  I  want  to  document  just 
briefly  the  last  statement  as  to  the  extent,  with  examples  of  the 
kind  of  avalanche,  of  propaganda 

Mr.  Martin.  One  clarification,  Dr.  Powelson,  when  you  talk  about 
pushers,  you  don't  mean  people  going  out  selling  it  in  the  street, 
you  mean  ideological  pushers? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That  is  the  reason  I  put  quotes  around  it.  I  am 
talking  about  people  who  don't  sell  it,  who  are  actively  engaged  in 
getting  other  people  to  use  it,  that  is  what  I  am  describing.  When 
they  become  active  in  government,  or  professions,  and  so  on,  the 
same  thinking  process  continues,  it  now  becomes  an  ideological  type 
of  pushing. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  mentioned  several  exhibits  that  you  wish  to 
offer  for  the  record. 

Dr.  Powelson.  Yes;  one  of  the  most  active  groups  is  called 
NORML. 

Mr.  Martin.  These  are  groups  that  call  for  what — the  legaliza- 
tion of  marihuana? 

Dr.  Powelson.  The  NORML  group,  called  the  National  Organi- 
zation for  the  Reform  of  Marihuana  Laws,  they  are  pushing  for 
legalization,  as  does  the  official  handbook  for  marihuana  users,  "A 
Child's  Garden  of  Grass".  Let  me  read  a  few  chapter  headings ;  "The 
Effects  of  Grass",  "Grass  As  an  Aphrodisiac",  "Games  To  Play  While 
Stoned",  "Acquiring  Grass",  "Using  Grass",  "Stashing  Grass".  They 
put  out  a  series  of  stamps  with  the  words  "Liberate  Marihuana".  Also 
a  shoulder  patch,  tote  bag,  and  a  constant  stream  of  propaganda 
material. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  is  the  official  insignia  of  the  organization? 

Dr.  Powelson.  Yes,  the  insignia  on  the  stamps,  shoulder  patch  and 
tote  bag. 

Senator  Eastland.  The  documents  will  be  admitted. 

[The  documents  referred  to  follow :] 


24 


THE  OFFICIAL  HANDBOOK 

FOR 
MARIJUANA 

USERS 

A  CHILD'S  GARDEN  OF  GRASS  is  a 
wildly  funny  examination  of  every  aspect 
of  the  sub-culture  which  exists  among  the 
millions  of  marijuana  users.  When  you  finish 
this  book  you  will  know  all  there  is  to  know 
about  the  use  of  the  weed  from  first  joint  to 
final  effect.    A  CHILD'S  GARDEN  GT 
GRASS  covers: 


THE  EFFECTS  OF  GRASS 
GRASS  AS  AN  APHRODISIAC 
GAMES  TO  PLAY  WHILE  STONED 
ACQUIRING  GRASS 
USING  GRASS 
STASHING  GRASS 


* 


$2.95 


"Books  about  drugs  are  surely  in, 
especially  those  dealing  with  mari- 
juana.  None  is  more  popular  than 
"A  Child's  Garden  of  Grass." 
Gene  Shalit,  NBC's  Today  television 
program. 

"It  has  something  to  say  to  those 
who  have,  to  those  who  haven't 
but  want  to,  and  even  to  those  who  don't 
want  to  but  would  like  to  stay  informed." 
TIME  Magazine 

"  More  sincerely  helpful  information  about  buying,  growing, 
cleaning,  smoking  and  eating  grass  than  is  available  in  nearly  all  the  other  pot 
books  .  .  .  perfect."  Rolling  Stone  Magazine 


REVISED  EDITION,  CONTAINING  ADDITIONAL  AND  UP-DATED  MATERIAL 


25 

TOTE  BAG  SOLD  BY  NORML 

(National  Organization  for  Reform  of  the  Marijuana  Law) 


«  LIBERATE  2 

«  LIBERATE  3 

<U  BERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

< 

3 

£ 

< 

B8 

X 

c 
> 

< 
3 

£ 
< 

SB 

5 

c 

< 
3 

£ 
< 

^ 

X 

c 
> 

< 
3 

£ 
< 

S3 

X 

c 

> 

< 
3 

£ 

B8 

x 

c 
> 

< 
3 

£ 

^ 

> 

X 

c 

< 

3 

£ 

^ 

> 

X 

c 
> 

E 

iiVM3an 

> 

E 

iivnaan 

> 

E3ivM3an> 

Euvuaan> 

£3jvu3an> 

saivH3an> 

EaivM3an> 

<UBERATE3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<UBERATE3 

<  L'BERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

< 

3 

£ 
< 

^ 

X 

c 

< 
3 

£ 

< 

m 

X 

c 
> 

< 
3 

£ 
< 

as 

X 

c 
> 

< 

3 

£ 
< 

99 

X 

c 
> 

< 
3 

£ 

< 

^ 

X 

c 
> 

< 

3 

£ 

BS 

> 

X 

c 
> 

< 

3 

£ 

^ 

> 

X 

c 

E 

uwaan 

> 

S 

uvasan 

> 

E 

iLvuaan 

> 

E3iTO3an> 

E3ivuaan> 

saiwoaro 

E3iVM3an> 

«  LIBERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<UBERATE3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<UBERATE3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

<  LIBERATE  3 

< 

3 

£ 
< 

m 

X 

c 
> 

< 
3 

£ 

< 

m 

X 

c 
> 

< 

3 

£ 
< 

58 

X 

c 
> 

< 

3 

£ 

< 

m 

X 

c 
> 

< 

3 

£ 

< 

m 

X 

c 
J> 

< 

3 

£ 

^ 

> 

X 

c 
> 

< 

3 

£ 

^ 

> 

X 

c 
> 

E 

uvM3an 

> 

E 

nvM3ar 

J» 

E 

iLvuaan 

> 

S 

uvaaan 

> 

Eaivuaan> 

EiLvnaaro 

E3±VH3an> 

26 

Mr.  Martin.  Apart  from  NORML,  are  there  any  other  organiza- 
tions involved  in  the  lobbying  to  legalize  marihuana? 

Dr.  Powelson.  Yes,  sir,  in  California  there  is  a  group  called 
"Amphoria",  they  are  openly  coming  out  for  the  advancement  of 
marihuana.  Some  of  the  pernicious  ones  to  my  mind  are  the  ones 
that  pose  as  educational  organizations,  for  instance  the  National 
Coordinating  Council  on  Drug  Education.  It  puts  out  a  newsletter 
called  "National  Drug  Reporter".  It  labels  itself  a  non-profit  drug 
education  consortium  of  130  national,  professional,  law  enforcement, 
government,  youth  and  service  organizations  and  corporations,  a  co- 
ordinated effort  to  find  rational  approaches  to  drug  abuse  prevention. 
I  think  anyone  looking  at  the  newsletter  gets  the  message  very 
clearly  that  that  is  not  what  it  is  doing.  It  is  passing  out  informa- 
tion which  is  essentially  what  I  would  call  pushing. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  is  information  in  support  of  marihuana,  or  the 
legalization  of  marihuana,  is  that  what  you  mean  ? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That  is  all  through  the  text.  For  instance,  the 
books  that  they  suggest  are  all  promarihuana.  Here  is  an  item  that 
I  picked  up  because  I  am  familiar  with  the  group  and  know  what 
they  are  talking  about,  "Review  of  the  National  Committee  on 
Marihuana",  sponsored  by  Amphoria,  produced  by  Ray  Films,  inter- 
viewed the  noted  drug  authority  John  Captain,  Dr.  Davis — it's 
available  from  Ashbury  Films,  707  Kirby  Street,  San  Francisco. 

I  think  it's  not  unfair  to  say  this  is  a  typical  example 

Mr.  Martin.  Could  you  raise  your  voice  a  little,  Dr.  Powelson, 
when  you  talk? 

The  organization  you  mentioned  is  the  National  Council  for  Drug 
Abuse  ? 

Dr.  Powelson.  The  National  Coordinating  Council  for  Drug 
Abuse  Education. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  know  who  the  officers  of  that  organization 
are? 

Dr.  Powelson.  The  president  is  Paul  Perito,  the  vice  president  is 
Michael  Sonnenreich. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  know  who  these  gentlemen  are? 

Dr.  Powelson.  The  only  one  familiar  to  me  is  Michael  Sonnen- 
reich, who  was  the  executive  director  of  the  staff  of  the  Shafer 
Commission,  the  President's  Commission  on  Marihuana. 

Mr.  Marten.  It  has  been  suggested  by  some  people,  Dr.  Powelson, 
and  among  them  Mr.  Edward  M.  Brecker,  a  drug  analyst  for  Con- 
sumers Union,  that  marihuana  might  be  a  more  benign  substitute 
for  alcohol.  I  would  like  to  quote  a  passage  from  Mr.  Brecker  and 
have  your  comment  on  it.  Mr.  Brecker  said,  "A  knowledgeable 
society,  noting  a  few  years  ago  that  some  of  its  members  were 
switching  from  alcohol  to  a  less  harmful  intoxicant,  marihuana, 
might  have  encouraged  that  trend.  It  may  not  be  too  late  to  present 
that  simple  public  health  message" 

What  do  you  think  about  that? 

Dr.  Powelson.  Well,  he  is  wrong  on  two  counts,  one  is  that  it  is 
not  a  substitute;  it  is,  among  the  young  people  in  particular,  being 
used  more  and  more  together. 


27 

Second,  when  used  together,  alcohol  plus  marihuana,  they  mutually 
reinforce  each  other.  Finally,  I  don't  agree  that  marihuana  is  a  more 
benign  drug  than  alcohol,  I  think  it  is  more  dangerous  for  the 
reasons  I  discussed,  and  others,  too. 

Mr.  Martin.  Well,  that  runs  counter,  as  you  know,  to  the  popular 
impression,  that  alcohol  is  far  more  dangerous.  Can  you  give  us  any 
more  reasons  why  you  consider  marihuana  to  be  more  dangerous  than 
alcohol  ? 

Dr.  Powelson.  The  one  I  mentioned  is  the  effect  on  thinking. 

Senator  Eastland.  Could  you  raise  your  voice  a  bit? 

Dr.  Powelson.  The  one  I  mentioned  is  the  effect  on  thinking.  Sec- 
ond, marihuana,  as  used  by  the  regular  users,  say  it  is  used  twice  a 
week,  the  concentration  in  the  brain  is  cumulative — it  stays  in  the 
brain.  So  that  people  who  are  using  marihuana  are  subclinically 
stoned  all  the  time. 

Mr.  Martin.  Using  marihuana  how  often — once  a  week — twice  a 
week? 

Dr.  Powelson.  They  then  use  one  joint  to  raise  the  level  of  feeling 
again,  but  are  still  under  the  effect.  Alcohol  leaves  within  24  hours, 
marihuana  is  in  for  days  to  months.  Its  effect  on  the  brain  is  much 
more  rapid  than  alcohol.  The  mental  effect  that  I  have  been  describ- 
ing from  marihuana  take  in  the  neighborhood  of  3  years.  That 
much  has  been  demonstrated.  Alcohol  takes  ten  times  that  time.  It 
is  also  very  probable  that  it  causes  lung  cancer. 

Mr.  Martin.  It  has  been  suggested,  Dr.  Powelson,  that  legaliza- 
tion might  reduce  marihuana  consumption  by  depriving  it  of  the 
"forbidden  fruit"  attraction.  Do  vou  think  there  might  be  something 
to  that? 

Dr.  Powelson.  No,  I  know  of  no  evidence  that  that  is  true.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  law  has  several  effects,  one  is,  simply  educational;  it 
is  also  important  for  the  people  who  don't  want  to  use  it  that  they 
be  able  to  say  to  themselves  or  others  that  they  are  afraid  of  the 
consequences.  So,  I  think  the  "forbidden  fruit"  theory  has  very  little 
claim  to  plausibility. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  it  be  possible,  in  your  opinion,  to  legalize 
marihuana,  and  keep  hashish  and  liquid  hashish  illegal? 

Dr.  Powelson.  I  see  no  way  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  believe  in  removing  all  penalties  for  simple 
possession  for  personal  use,  which  is,  as  you  know,  one  of  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Shafer  Commission? 

Dr.  Powelson.  No,  I  do  not,  for  the  reasons  I  already  mentioned. 
I  want  to  keep  some  kind  of  penalties,  partly  to  retain  the  sanction, 
partly  for  educational  reasons  and  partly  for  young  people  who 
want  to  stay  away  from  it. 

Mr.  Martin.  What  kinds  of  penalties  would  you  suggest  keeping? 

Dr.  Powelson.  Well,  essentially  the  ones  we  have  in  California 
now.  what  they  amount  to  is  a  misdemeanor  for  possession.  The  user, 
with  a  small  amount,  is  put  on  probation  with  the  _  provision  of 
erasing  the  arrest  from  his  record  after  a  period  of  time  after  the 
probation  is  terminated. 

Mr.  Martin.  There  are  many  reports,  Dr.  Powelson,  over  the  past 


28 

5  or  6  years,  that  high  school  teachers  in  all  parts  of  the  country 
have  been  confronted  by  a  steady  year-by-year  decline  in  student  per- 
formance. They  find  students  are  less  motivated;  students  seem  to 
find  it  more  difficult  to  focus  and  understand;  they  work  less;  they 
are  more  unruly.  The  result  has  been  that  many  teachers  who  used 
to  enjoy  teaching  find  the  profession  increasingly  difficult  and  are 
thinking  of  getting  out  of  it ;  and  this  is  supposed  to  be  a  nationwide 
trend. 

In  your  judgment,  could  this  phenomenon  be  related  to  the  up- 
ward spiraling  epidemic  of  cannabis  use  in  high  schools  ? 

Dr.  Powelson.  I  suppose  it  could  be;  I  don't  have  any  way  of 
proving  it,  or  knowing  whether  there  is,  or  is  not,  a  connection.  T 
can  answer  concretely  from  my  own  experience  that  individuals, 
once  they  begin  using  cannabis,  for  a  number  of  reasons  their  aca- 
demic performance  falls  off.  No.  1,  again,  it  interferes  with  their 
thinking  at  some  point;  No.  2,  motivation  becomes  less  and  less. 
anybody  can  attest  to  that  on  a  college  campus  or  high  school 
campus.  The  trouble  is  that  there  are  so  many  other  things  going 
on  simultaneously.  I  think  one  of  the  things  about  drugs,  the  younger 
the  user,  the  more  likely  the  effect  will  be— the  effect  on  maturing 
and  learning  will  be  greater.  That  is,  the  younger  the  user,  the 
greater  the  effect. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  mentioned  other  factors  and  phenomena.  What 
are  the  other  factors? 

Dr.  Powelson.  The  whole  educational  system  is  undergoing  major 
changes.  Just  last  week  one  member  of  the  Berkeley  School  Board 
said  in  the  process  of  choosing  a  new  superintendent  of  the  schools. 
"We  are  not  interested  in  a  superintendent  of  schools  who  wants 
to  teach  reading  and  writing;  we  are  interested  in  a  superintendent 
who  wants  to  teach  our  kids  how  to  seize  power."  And  that  was 
seconded  by  another  member  of  the  school  board. 

The  superintendent  of  schools,  when  he  took  office,  said,  "There 
are  no  failures  of  students,  there  are  only  teachers  that  are  failures." 
When  all  the  students  heard  that,  of  course,  that  was  a  prime  kind 
of  notice  that  they  didn't  have  to  try  anymore.  So,  I  think  we  have 
many  alternatives.  The  schools  in  Berkeley  are  financed  by  the 
Federal  Government.  They  don't  teach  reading  and  writing,  they  are 
teaching  people  to  feel  good.  All  of  these  things  are  going  on,  and 
I  think  the  use  of  drugs  and  the  deterioration  of  the  school  system 
are  probably  parallel  and  intertwined. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  feel  they  go  hand  in  hand? 

Dr.  Powelson.  I  do. 

Mr.  Martin.  There  are  conflicting  views,  Dr.  Powelson,  as^  to 
whether  or  not  marihuana  leads  to  violence.  What  is  your  own  view 
on  this,  based  on  your  personal  experience  ? 

Dr.  Powelson.  The  fact  that  there  were  exaggerated  reports  in 
the  1930's  that  were  referred  to  by  a  previous  witness,  I  agree  to. 
On  the  other  hand,  I  first  believed  that  marihuana  users,  when  they 
were  high,  they  were  cool  and  loving.  I  have  come  to  see  thatthis 
is  an  intermediate  stage,  fantasy,  or  illusion.   They  look  amiable 


29 

enough,  but  when  you  begin  interfering  with  the  use,  to  take  it  away 
from  them,  you  can  have  a  very  ugly  situation. 

My  own  experience  is  that  with  heavy  users,  when  they  are 
crossed  in  the  area  of  their  use  of  drugs,  or  their  ideology,  you  run, 
as  I  said,  into  very  ugly  situations. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  concludes  my  questioning,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  May  I  ask  a  question  of  Dr.  Powelson? 

Senator  Eastland.  Of  course. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Sir,  my  understanding  of  the  summarization,  what 
you  told  us  with  respect  to  decreasing  performance  among  high 
school  students  and  its  possible  relation  to  marihuana  or  cannabis 
use  is,  that  a  substantial  number  of  students  use  the  drug,  and  you 
know  it  will  affect  the  downgrading  of  the  average  performance 
level.  But,  the  fact  that  the  average  performance  level  goes  down 
doesn't  necessarily  increase  the  use  of  hashish  or  marihuana;  that 
might  be  caused  by  a  number  of  other  factors  that  you  mentioned. 

Dr.  Powelson.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  gave  us  a  discussion  of  what  appeared  to  be 
to  me  the  overall  effects  of  use  of  cannabis.  You  talked  about  a  student 
designated  as  "S.",  who  continued  to  use  marihuana  and  hashish.  It 
wasn't  clear  whether  he  moved  progressively  first  to  larger  quanti- 
ties of  marihuana  and  then  hashish.  Is  that  the  way  it  went? 

Dr.  Powelson.  It  doesn't  follow  a  pattern.  This  particular  young 
man,  he  was  also  wealthy  and  spoiled,  and  he  moved  very  fast  from 
marihuana  to  hashish  because  he  was  looking  for  highs,  he  didn't 
"progress."  The  usual  pattern,  I  would  say.  is  using  low-grade  qual- 
ity, and  then,  as  people  become  tolerant,  they  are  looking  for  more 
and  more  highs,  and  they  are  moving  gradually  from  better  quality 
marihuana  to  hashish.  But  some  people  jump  immediately  from 
one  to  the  other.  This  particular  person  jumped  immediately  from 
marihuana  to  hashish. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  One  final  question,  sir.  You  discussed  an  increasing 
number  of  patients  who  were  found  to  be  using  marihuana.  Now, 
there  was  at  the  same  time,  from  1965  to  1972  an  increased  use  of 
marihuana  in  the  entire  student  body;  was  there  not? 

Dr.  Powelson.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Can  you  relate  in  any  way  the  percentage  of  in- 
crease, or  the  degree  of  progression  in  the  student  body,  to  the  per- 
centage of  increase  or  degree  of  possession  of  marihuana  among  your 
psychiatric  patients? 

Dr.  Powelson.  We  did  surveys  all  the  way  through,  in  which  we 
compared  our  students  in  the  student  health  service,  in  the  psychiatric 
clinic,  with  the  general  population,  and  we  never  found  any  differ- 
ence. The  students  in  the  Student  Health  Service  were  not  using  any 
more,  or  any  less,  than  the  general  population. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  In  other  words,  you  are  saying  you  were  examining 
more  psychiatric  patients  who  used  marihuana  because  there  were 
more  users  among  the  student  body  as  a  whole,  rather  than  because 
marihuana  made  them  psychiatric  patients. 

Dr.  Powelson.  That  is  correct. 


33-371    O  -  74   -   4 


30 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Thank  you.  I  have  no  further  questions. 

Mr.  Martin.  Our  next  witness  will  be  Dr.  Henry  Brill.  Would 
you  come  forward?  You  have  a  prepared  statement,  Dr.  Brill,  on 
your  qualifications,  so  it  won't  be  necessary  for  me  to  question  you 
on  your  qualifications. 

Dr.  Brill.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  you  identify  yourself? 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  HENRY  BRILL,  REGIONAL  DIRECTOR,  NEW 
YORK  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  MENTAL  HYGIENE 

Dr.  Brill.  I  am  Dr.  Henry  Brill  of  West  Brentwood,  Long  Island, 
N.Y.,  where  I  am  regional  director  in  the  New  York  State  Depart- 
ment of  Mental  Hygiene. 

I  have  submitted  a  curriculum  vitae  which  states  my  qualifications 
in  the  field  of  drug  dependence.  These  qualifications  include  past  or 
present  membership  and/or  chairmanship  of  the  American  Medical 
Association,  the  World  Health  Organization,  and  the  FDA.  I  also 
had  for  almost  a  decade  major  responsibility  for  the  development  of 
the  narcotic  treatment  program  for  New  York  State. 

I  am  here  today  as  an  individual  and  not  as  a  representative  of 
any  organization,  but  I  was  a  member  of  the  National  Commission 
on  Marihuana  and  Drug  Abuse 1  throughout  its  period  of  operation, 
and  I  am  concerned  about  the  misinterpretations  which  have  devel- 
oped with  respect  to  the  marihuana  report  of  that  Commission.  These 
misinterpretations  result  from  reading  the  reassuring  passages  in 
the  report  and  ignoring  the  final  conclusions  and  recommendations, 
and  the  passages  in  the  report  on  which  they  were  based.  As  a  re- 
sult it  has  been  claimed  that  the  Commission's  report  was  intended 
to  give  marihuana  a  clean  bill  of  health,  and  as  a  covert,  or  indirect 
support  for  legalization  of  this  drug  in  the  near  future,  or  as  a  step 
in  that  direction.  Nothing  could  be  further  from  the  truth. 

From  mv  knowledge  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Commission,  I  can 
reaffirm  that  the  report  and  the  subsequent  statements  by  the  Com- 
mission meant  exactly  what  they  said,  namely  that  this  drug  should 
not  be  legalized,  that  control  measures  for  trafficking  in  the  drug 
were  necessary  and  should  be  continued,  and  that  use  of  this  drug 
should  be  discouraged  because  of  its  potential  hazards. 

Mitigation  or  abolition  of  penalties  relating  to  private  use  were 
recommended  purelv  on  practical  and  humane  grounds.  The  position 
is  clearly  stated  in  the  closing  pages  of  the  first  Report  "Marihuana— 
A  Signal  of  Misunderstanding",  specifically  on  pages  150-178. 
Among  the  cautionary  statements  one  can  list  the  comments  on  hazards 
of  prolonged  and  heavy  use,  on  page  66;  the  paragraphs  on  be- 
havioral effects,  psvchological  dependence,  and  possible  organ  dam- 
age and  psychosis,"  page  59 ;  and  the  hazards  of  further  spread  of 
the  habit,  on  pas;e  82 ;  the  notes  on  the  amotivational  syndrome,  page 
86 ;  and  the  association  of  marihuana  use  with  other  drug  use,  page 
46.  On  pages  119  and  120  we  find  an  account  of  the  consensus  of 

i  Marihuana— A  Signal  of  Misunderstanding— First  Report  of  the  National  Commission 
on  Marihuana  and  Drug  Abuse  ;  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office.  Washington,  D.C..  1972. 


31 

the  medical  profession  that  marihuana  use  constitutes  a  hazard  to 
the  individual,  that  the  drug  should  not  be  legalized,  and  that  m  re 
research  is  needed.  On  page  175  we  find  a  statement  concerning  the 
need  to  detect  and  punish  persons  operating  vehicles  and  other  dan- 
gerous equipment  under  the  influence  of  marihuana. 

Contrary  to  what  has  been  claimed  there  never  was  any  intention 
to  indicate  in  the  Commission's  report  that  we  already  knew  enough 
about  marihuana  in  1972  to  justify  its  legalization.  Instead  a  major 
section  of  the  report  is  devoted  to  the  need  for  more  research. 

In  summary  I  would  say  that  I  found  myself  in  complete  agree- 
ment with  the  conclusions  of  the  Commission  and  my  attitude  was 
reinforced  by  personal  observations  in  mental  hospitals  here  and  in 
Greece,  Morocco,  and  Jamaica  during  my  work  with  the  National 
Marihuana  Commission. 

Scientific  reports  which  have  become  available  since  the  report 
was  written  confirm  still  further  the  need  for  caution.  The  newer 
data  includes  clinical  reports  which  have  continued  to  become  avail- 
able concerning  complications  of  acute  and  chronic  use;  descriptions 
of  mental  deterioration  and  acute  psychotic  attacks  2  3  after  cannabis 
in  reports  from  India ;  evidence  of  high  incidence  of  impaired  lung 
function ; 4  further  data  on  flashbacks  in  LSD  users  which  seem  to  be 
associated  with  subsequent  marihuana  use;5  and  reports  of  acute 
psychotic  reactions  from  even  small  amounts  of  cannabis  in  certain 
cases. 

Finally,  one  should  note  the  comment  from  Jamaica  6  7  in  the  West 
Indies  where  the  effects  of  cannabis  had  been  thought  to  be  rela- 
tively benign;  among  the  middle  class  it  is  now  found  to  be  asso- 
ciated with  school  dropouts,  transient  phychoses,  panic  states,  and 
adolescent  behavior  disorders.  In  general  the  effects  of  the  drug 
continue  to  be  noted  as  subtle  and  insidious.  I  would  like  to  empha- 
size that  one  way  to  describe  the  effect  of  cannabis :  it^  is  subtle 
and  insidious,  but  harmful  reactions  in  the  heart  and  circulatory 
system  are  suspected,  and  there  are  indications  of  adverse  reaction 
in  the  body's  anti-infection  chemistry.8 

Finally,  some  older  issues  are  being  reopened  and  evidence  is  that 
physical  dependence  does  occur  with  very  heavy  use  and  that  with- 
drawal leads  to  physical  sickness  in  man  and  in  animals.9  These  are 
but  a  few  illustrations  chosen  almost  at  random  to  show  that  the 
latest  scientific  literature  strongly  supports  the  cautionary  position 
of  the  Commission.  I  may  add  that  in  my  own  view  marihuana  must 
still  be  classed  as  a  dangerous  drug,  dangerous  to  enough  people  to 


2  Psychotic  Reactions  Following  Cannabis  Use  in  East  Indies,  G.  S.  Chopra  and  J.  W. 
Smith';  Arch.  Gen  Psychiatry,  Vol.  30,  January  1974,  p.   24-27. 

3  Bhang  Psychosis,  V.  R.  Thacore  :  B.  Jour.  Psychiatry  (1973)  123,  p.  225-229 

4  Adverse  Reactions  Associated  with  Cannabis  Products  in  India,  Wm.  Grossman: 
Annals  of  Internal  Med.  70:  (3)    529-533,1969. 

5  Marihuana  Flashbacks,  M.  D.  Stanton;  Amer.  Jour,  of  Psychiatry,  130:  12,  Dec.  19T8, 
p.  1399-1400.  „    _       ,_  T        ,        „„     .  . 

9  Australia-New  Zealand  Meeting.  Report  of  paper  by  M.  Beaubrun ;  Jamaica  Psychi- 
atric News,  December  19,  1973,  p.  9.  M  ,      „,,.,„  m„„f 

•Drug  Abuse  in  Different  Cultural  Grouns  in  Jamaica — Summary  for  Oct.  15-19  meet- 
ing, Svdney,  Australia,  M.  J.  Beaubrun;  Mimeo  (undated). 

8  Inhibition  of  Cellular  Mediated  Immunity  in  Marihuana  Smokers,  G.  Nahas  ;  bcience, 

6»  Tolerance  to  and  Dependence  on  Cannabis,  S.  Kaymakcalan ;  Bull,  on  Narcotics.  Vol. 
XXV,  No.  4,  December  1973,  p.  39-47. 


32 

warrant  full  control.  I  don't  distinguish  sharply  between  hashish  and 
marihuana;  these  are  different  concentrations  of  the  same  principle. 

This  concludes  my  statement,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  would  now  be 
pleased  to  answer  any  questions  which  you  and  the  committee  may 
have. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much,  Dr.  Brill. 

You  said  you  were  concerned  over  the  misinterpretations  that  de- 
veloped with  respect  to  the  Shafer  Commission  report.  I  want  to 
quote  what  you  said,  "These  misinterpretations  result  from  reading 
the  reassuring  passages  in  the  report,  and  ignoring  the  final  con- 
clusions and  recommendations." 

Now,  who  was  responsible  for  these  misinterpretations,  was  it  the 
media,  was  it  the  academic  community,  promarihuana  pressure 
groups  ? 

Dr.  Brill.  It  is  hard  to  point  the  finger  at  anybody,  but  I  think 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  wishful  thinking  involved;  and  a  lot  of 
people  wish  that  this  source  of  pleasure  were  completely  harmless, 
and  therefore  it  was  rather  easy  to  believe  in  it,  and  to  shut  off  all 
negative  information  that  might  be  available. 

Mr.  Martin.  Can  you  give  us  a  clearer  idea  of  what  you  have  in 
mind? 

Dr.  Brill.  Yes,  I  think  it  also  could  be  said  that  the  information 
which  has  been  available  in  the  public  media  in  the  last  year  or  two 
has  tended  to  emphasize  the  harmlessness  of  marihuana,  and  to 
understate  the  other  side  of  it. 

Mr.  Martin.  To  get  a  clearer  idea  of  what  you  had  in  mind  by 
this  statement,  Dr.  Brill,  I  would  like  to  ask  a  few  questions  on  an 
article  on  the  Shafer  Commission's  report,  which  appeared  in  the 
U.S.  News  and  World  Report  on  April  7,  1972.  The  heading  on  this 
article  was,  "Evils  of  Marihuana — More  Fantasy  Than  Fact?"  Do 
you  think  that  conveyed  a  fair  representation  of  the  essential  thrust 
of  the  report? 

Dr.  Brill.  I  don't  think  it  did.  I  think  it  could  mislead,  especially 
in  view  of  the  "wishful  thinking"  that  many  people  had  in  this  field. 

Mr.  Martin.  Let  me  quote  a  few  items  selected  by  the  U.S.  News 
from  the  report,  and  ask  for  your  comments  on  that.  The  article  in 
U.S.  News  quoted  the  report  as  saying,  "Cannabis  does  not  lead  to 
physical  dependency.  No  tortuous  withdrawal  syndrome  follows  the 
sudden  cessation  of  chronic  heavy  use  of  marihuana."  Has  that  been 
established  in  any  way  in  recent  research  ? 

Dr.  Brill.  Yes,  there  is  a  recent  publication,  and  I  think  I  have 
given  you  a  reference  on  the  subject,  a  publication  in  the  U.N. 
Bulletin  on  Narcotics,  which  indicates  that  after  heavy  administra- 
tion real  withdrawal  symptoms  can  be  elicited  in  animals,  monkeys; 
and  there  is  a  strong  suspicion  they  do  occur  in  human  beings. 
However,  in  all  fairness,  ordinary  level  use  does  not  produce  physi- 
cal withdrawal  symptoms.  It  does,  however,  in  some  people,  lead  to 
a  considerable  amount  of  irritability;  and  Dr.  Powelson  mentioned 
that. 

Mr.  Martin.  Irritability  which  could  be  translated  into  violence 
under  certain  circumstances? 


33 

Dr.  Brill.  Well,  among  certain  people  under  certain  circumstances. 
I  am  not  convinced  that  as  a  drug  marihuana  specifically  is  marked 
by  violence  in  our  culture.  Other  cultures  have  described  it,  and 
that  is  a  curious  contradiction  that  still  remains  to  be  clarified. 

Mr.  Martin.  The  second  question  on  the  U.S.  News  article:  The 
article  says :  "Recent  research  has  not  yet  proven  that  marihuana  use 
significantly  impairs  driving  ability  or  performance."  In  the  light  of 
recent  research,  pointing  to  some  serious  defects  in  driving  ability, 
don't  you  agree  that  this  finding  might  have  to  be  reconsidered  ? 

Dr.  Brill.  I  think  it  may  well  have  to  be  reconsidered,  but  I  would 
want  to  see  it  proven  that  the  drug  is  safe  for  driving  under  field 
conditions.  We  have  enough  hazards  on  the  roads  without  taking 
chances  with  intoxicants.  That  still  remains  to  be  tested  in  the  lab- 
oratories to  the  satisfaction  of  some  people.  It  stands  to  reason  that 
an  individual  who  is  intoxicated  with  a  substance  that  interferes 
with  measurement  of  time  and  distance,  that  may  produce  hallucina- 
tions, may  very  well  be  a  hazard  on  the  road. 

May  I  add  one  more  thing.  We  had  an  interview  with  a  mari- 
huana using  group  in  Chicago  when  I  was  with  the  Commission.  We 
point  blank  asked  them  what  they  thought  about  having  people 
ride  motorcycles  under  the  influence  of  marihuana;  and  these  were 
marihuana  users,  middle-class  cultured  people.  They  agreed  com- 
pletely that  that  was  not  a  good  mixture,  and  they  would  not  approve 
of  it.  So,  they  must  from  their  own  personal  experience  have  felt 
there  must  be  some  interference  with  efficiency. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  would  correspond  with  the  knowledge  that 
every  drinker  has  when  he  is  intoxicated — that  he  doesn't  drive  as 
well  when  he  is  under  the  influence  of  alcohol? 

Dr.  Brill.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Martin.  On  the  nature  of  the  epidemic  in  the  United  States, 
the  U.S.  News  quoted  the  following  paragraph,  "We  are  inclined 
to  believe  that  the  present  interest  in  marihuana  is  transient,  and 
will  diminish  in  time  of  its  own  accord,  once  the  symbolic  aspect 
of  use  is  deemphasized,  leaving  among  our  population  a  relatively 
small  coterie  of  users." 

Wouldn't  you  say  that  the  statistics  that  were  presented  here  today 
suggest  that  things  may  be  moving  in  the  opposite  direction? 

Dr.  Brill.  I  am  afraid  they  do.  Of  course  all  drug  abuse,  if  you 
want  to  call  it  that,  all  use  of  drugs  for  social  and  recreational  pur- 
poses has  a  fad-like  quality  to  it;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  was 
presented  here  today  to  indicate  that  we  are  in  a  downswing. 

Mr.  Martin.  From  the  several  replies  you  have  given,  Dr.  Brill, 
it  is  apparent  you  believe  that  new  scientific  evidence  which  has 
emerged  since  your  report  was  written — it  was  written  in  late  1971, 
beginning  of  1972 — would  make  it  necessary  to  reconsider  a  number 
of  your  findings  and  recommendations.  Is  that  a  correct  statement? 

Dr.  Brill.  Well,  when  the  report  was  written  we  fully  recognized 
that  the  conclusions  would  have  to  be  reconsidered  in  the  light  of 
advancing  knowledge.  Knowledge  is  advancing,  and  I  think  that  all 
these  conclusions  could  very  well  be  subject  to  reconsideration  as 
time  goes  on,  yes. 


34 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  feel,  for  example,  that  this  new  knowledge- 
might  perhaps  point  to  the  need  for  reconsidering  the  Commission's 
recommendation  that  all  penalties  be  removed  for  simple  possession 
of  small  quantities  of  marihuana?  Would  you  for  example  now 
favor,  as  Dr.  Powelson  apparently  does,  the  retention  of  some  minor 
penalty  for  possession,  perhaps  a  warning  the  first  time,  a  fine  the 
second  time,  a  stiffer  fine  the  third  time,  and  so  on? 

Dr.  Brill.  I  might  very  well,  although  I  must  admit  that  I  don't 
pretend  to  have  any  knowledge  of  the  law,  or  the  effectiveness  of  the 
law  in  this  field.  So,  I  intend  to  restrict  my  comments  to  what  the 
hazards  are.  How  they  are  to  be  viewed  by  the  law  really  would 
fall  outside  my  domain. 

But  as  an  outsider  I  would  have  to  agree  that  some  kind  of  a 
minor  penalty  might  very  well  be  considered. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  it  be  correct  to  infer  from  the  answer  you 
have  already  given,  Doctor,  that  if  the  Shafer  Report  would  be  re- 
issued today  in  an  updated  version,  you  would  consider  it  important 
to  extend  the  report  to  include  references  to  the  recent  research  you 
referred  to,  and  perhaps  amend  some  of  your  recommendations  in 
light  of  this  research? 

Dr.  Brill.  It  is  hard  to  second-guess  a  group  like  the  Commis- 
sion; but  as  to  the  first  part  of  your  statement,  it  is  certainly  true, 
it  would  have  to  be  brought  up  to  date.  How  that  would  influence 
the  final  outcome  I  wouldn't  be  able  to  say.  And  in  making  this 
reply,  I  have  in  mind  the  long,  extensive  discussions  that  occurred. 
These  conclusions  were  not  hatched  out  extemporanously,  they  were 
the  result  of  a  great  deal  of  discussion  and  thought. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  your  statement  you  used  the  words  "insidious  and 
subtle" — the  phrase  "insidious  and  subtle" — to  describe  the  effects  of 
cannabis.  Could  you  spell  out  in  some  more  detail  what  you  mean 
by  "insidious  and  subtle"? 

Dr.  Brill.  Dr.  Powelson  has  already  referred  to  one  aspect,  and 
that  is  the  chronic  effects  of  cannabis.  The  chronic  disabling  effect 
of  alcohol  tends  to  become  fully  apparent  after  10  to  20  or  more 
years  after  excessive  alcohol  abuse,  whereas  in  the  case  of  cannabis 
this  slides  in  insidiously,  and  within  2  or  3  years  an  individual  has 
problems,  and  it  takes  some  technical  and  professional  experience  to 
realize  where  this  came  from  because  the  symptoms  look  like  a 
rather  nonspecific  loss  of  social  and  economic  capacity,  and  nonspe- 
cific general  withdrawal  from  the  competitive  life;  and^  a  general 
tendency  to  be  lost  in  pseudo-elevated  forms  of  conversation,  a  syn- 
drome which  doesn't  point  to  anything  in  particular  unless  one  is 
familiar  with  this  drug. 

Now,  in  the  acute  effects,  the  short-term  effects,  especially  when 
small  doses  are  used,  there  is  very  little  to  see;  only  when  heavy  doses 
are  used,  when  there  are  pathological  intoxications  can  one  see  a 
real  explosive  immediate  effect. 

Now,  contrast  that  to  alcohol  where  an  acute  intoxication  leads 
to  slurred  speech,  ataxia,  and  symptoms  that  can  be  picked  up  im- 
mediately, including  the  odor  on  the  breath.  It  is  far  more  difficult 
to  identify  someone  equally  intoxicated  from  marihuana.  He  can 


35 

straighten  up  and  with  an  effort  of  will  can  really  compensate  for 
all  of  the  disabilities  to  superficial  examination. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  made  the  point,  Dr.  Brill,  that  the  media  in 
general  covered  the  report  of  the  Shafer  Commission  in  a  one- 
sided manner,  that  they  ignored,  or  misrepresented  in  some  cases  the 
basic  thrust  of  your  report.  Has  this  one-sidedness  carried  over  to 
other  areas?  Would  you  agree  or  disagree,  for  example,  with  the 
chairman's  opening  statement,  and  I  want  to  quote  what  he  said, 
"There  has  been  widespread  publicity  for  writings  and  research 
advocating  a  more  tolerant  attitude  towards  marihuana,  while  there 
has  been  little  or  no  publicity  for  writings  or  research  which  point 
to  serious  adverse  consequences." 

Dr.  Brill.  As  I  read  what  is  in  the  media,  and  hear  it,  I  must 
admit  that  the  favorable  side  for  marihuana  is  more  heavily  pre- 
sented than  the  unfavorable  side.  I  can't  agree  with  this  kind  of 
emphasis ;  I  think  it  needs  more  balance.  There  have  been  both  sides 
presented  in  many  cases,  but  overall  I  am  afraid  that  the  statement 
is  quite  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  The  chairman  also  said  in  his  opening  statement  the 
purpose  of  these  hearings  was  to  present  the  other  side,  the  side  that 
by  and  large  has  not  been  heard  by  the  Congress  and  the  American 
people,  so  that  both  the  Congress  and  people  would  have  an  under- 
standing of  both  sides  of  this  controversy. 

Would  you  concur  in  the  judgment  that  the  presentation  of  the 
other  side  is  badly  needed? 

Dr.  Brill.  I  think  it  is.  I  think  it  needs  to  be  emphasized.  The 
Commission  report,  I  thought,  presented  a  fairly  balanced  picture; 
but  what  emerged  from  it,  in  the  public  consciousness,  was  quite  un- 
balanced. So,  I  would  completely  agree:  the  negative  side  of  this 
picture,  the  unpleasant  side,  has  to  be  faced. 

Mr.  Martin.  The  subcommittee  has  received  evidence  that  noted 
scientists  whose  research  and  analyses  pointing  to  serious  adverse 
consequences  have  come  under  violent  personal  attack,  including 
public  and  private  harassment  from  members  of  promarihuana 
lobbies,  and  even  members  of  the  scientific  community  associated 
with  the  promarihuana  lobby.  Do  you  have  any  personal  knowledge 
of  such  attacks  on  fellow  scientists? 

Dr.  Brill.  I  have  seen  this  happen  on  several  occasions,  yes;  I 
was  quite  distressed  by  it. 

Mr.  Martin.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  no  further  questions. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Sir,  Tom  what  }Tou  have  just  told  us  about  physi- 
cal dependency  among  heavy  users  of  cannabis,  and  withdrawal 
effects,  is  it  fair  to  summarize  by  saying  that  in  light  of  all  that  is 
now  known  on  the  subject,  it  is  not  scientifically  correct  to  call 
cannabis,  marihuana  or  hashish,  a  nonaddictive  drug? 

Dr.  Brill.  That  is  a  very  difficult  scientific  question  to  answer;  it 
can  produce  physical  dependence,  so  I  think  if  this  information  is 
confirmed  by  subsequent  studies,  then  we  will  have  to  revise  our 
opinion.  But,  it  would  be  premature  to  make  a  major  change  on 
the  basis  of  the  very  few  studies  that  are  as  yet  available. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Dr.  Brill,  in  an  area  like  this,  and  attempting  to 


36 

form  a  judgment  about  an  issue  such  as  this,  isn't  it  true  that  it's 
not  a  question  of  a  popularity  contest,  or  a  vote;  if  no  ill  effects  are 
found  in  the  drug  over  a  period  of  sufficient  time  with  enough  in- 
vestigations and  experiments,  then  we  may  say  that  it  is  a  safe 
drug.  But,  as  soon  as  you  do  find  under  controlled  experiments, 
properly  carried  out,  evidence  of  danger,  you  may  no  longer  call 
it  a  safe  drug;  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Brill.  I  think  that  is  entirely  correct,  but  I  must  say  that  the 
argument,  where  the  line  is  drawn  about  how  safe,  or  how  unsafe — 
my  own  personal  opinion  is  that  this  is  sufficiently  unsafe,  so  that 
it  should  not  be  legalized.  There  are  some  people  who  say  that  no 
drug  is  safe,  all  drugs  are  unsafe,  all  drugs  are  the  same.  I  think 
this  is  misleading,  and  I  think  that  this  drug  is  unsafe  for  enough 
people,  so  that  it  should  not  be  made  generally  available. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  have  no  further  questions. 

Senator  Eastland.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Brill. 

Mr.  Martin.  Our  next  witness,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  Dr.  Donald 
B.  Louria  from  the  New  Jersey  Medical  School.  Dr.  Louria,  would 
you  come  forward? 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  DONALD  B.  LOURIA,  NEW  JERSEY  MEDICAL 
SCHOOL,  NEWARK,  NJ. 

Dr.  Louria.  I  am  Donald  B.  Louria,  professor  and  chairman,  De- 
partment of  Preventive  Medicine  and  Community  Health,  New  Jer- 
sey Medical  School,  Newark,  N.J. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  few  more  questions  for  the 
purpose  of  establishing  your  qualifications,  Dr.  Louria.  You  are  a 
graduate,  cum  laude,  of  the  Harvard  Medical  School  in  1953? 

Dr.  Louria.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  served  as  chairman  of  the  Subcommittee  on 
Narcotics  of  the  Medical  Society  of  New  York  County  from  1965 
to  1966? 

Dr.  Louria.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  served  on  the  Council  of  the  Committee  on  Alco- 
holism and  Drug  Abuse,  Medical  Society  of  the  State  of  New  York 
from  1966  to  1969? 

Dr.  Louria.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  were  chairman  and  president  of  the  New  York 
State  Council  on  Drug  Addiction  from  1965  to  1972? 

Dr.  Louria.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  are  the  author  of  three  books  on  drugs,  "Night- 
mare Drugs",  "The  Drug  Scene",  and  "Overcoming  Drugs"? 

Dr.  Louria.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much,  Dr.  Louria,  will  you  proceed 
with  your  prepared  statement? 

Dr.  Louria.  I  have  been  asked  to  briefly  review  the  epidemiology 
of  drug  abuse  in  this  country  from  the  point  of  where  we  are  and 
how  we  got  there. 

In  the  1930's,  the  major  problem  was,  of  course,  heroin,  and  the 
evidence  suggests  that  this  drug,  used  primarily  within  economi- 


37 

cally  deprived  communities  represented  an  escape  from  psychological 
pain  or  from  the  depressing  effects  of  a  relentlessly  bleak  environ- 
ment. In  striking  contrast,  the  startling  epidemic  of  the  1960's  and 
early  1970's  in  which  marihuana,  LSD,  and  heroin  were  all  partici- 
pants, was  propelled  by  a  virtually  monolithic  hedonistic  focus  in  the 
United  States.  This  dominance  of  the  search  for  pleasure  has  been 
abetted  by  our  marvelous  communications  proficiency  that  permits  any 
given  fad  to  spread  throughout  the  country  virtually  instantaneously. 

The  division  of  Drug  Abuse  and  Biostatistics  of  the  Department 
of  Preventive  Medicine  and  Community  Health  at  the  New  Jersey 
Medical  School  in  Newark  have  been  analyzing  the  nature  and  sever- 
ity of  the  drug  scene  in  suburban  communities  in  northern  New 
Jersey  for  the  past  5  years.  These  surveys  of  some  20,000  teenagers 
have  been  conducted  by  cross-sectional  analysis  in  a  substantial  num- 
ber of  junior  and  senior  high  schools  and  by  longitudinal  analysis 
in  two  communities. 

The  data  show  that  the  three  major  reasons  listed  by  the  students 
for  drug  use — the  influence  of  the  peer  group,  curiosity,  and  the 
search  for  pleasure — have  not  changed  during  that  5-year  period. 
Interestingly,  if  one  looks  at  over  20  factors  that  to  a  greater  or  lesser 
extent  promote  drug  use,  the  statistical  evidence  shows  that  far  and 
away  the  most  important  is  the  influence  of  the  peer  group. 

The  studies  performed  longitudinally  suggest  that  the  use  of 
illicit  drugs  is  reaching  a  plateau  in  this  country.  I  am  talking 
now  primarily  about  our  own  studies,  and  what  we  found  in  the 
past  couple  of  years  is  conversant  with  most  of  the  other  studies  in 
the  country.  The  results  can  be  best  illustrated  by  looking  at  the 
results  of  a  recent  questionnaire  study  of  grades  10,  11,  and  12  in 
one  high  school.  In  the  survey  conducted  during  the  last  academic 
year  grade  12 — last  year's  seniors — showed  an  increase  in  use  of  a 
variety  of  drugs,  including  marihuana,  hashish,  LSD,  and  cocaine. 
Grade  11  was  substantially  different,  there  was  a  continuing  in- 
crease in  marihuana  use,  but  use  of  every  other  drug  was  stable.  In 
grade  10,  marihuana  use  was  stable  and  use  of  all  other  illicit  drugs 
declined.  These  are  extremely  encouraging  results,  the  first  we  have 
seen  since  the  start  of  this  epidemic.  There  is  at  present  no  reason  for 
either  precipitous  or  hysterical  action  on  the  one  hand,  or  insouci- 
ance on  the  other. 

Three  of  the  trends  are  particularly  worthy  of  note: 

First,  it  appears  that  the  slope  of  the  curve  of  increasing  use  in 
grades  11  and  12  has  flattened;  that  is,  the  rate  of  increase  in  the 
last  year  has  slowed. 

Second,  there  is  a  substantial  decrease  in  the  ratio  of  regular  or 
weekly  use  of  marihuana  to  experimentation  with  this  drug.  In 
other  words,  there  are  more  people  who  are  experimenting  but  rela- 
tively fewer  who  are  regular  users.  Furthermore,  there  is  increasing 
evidence  that  the  relationship  of  marihuana  to  other  drugs  is  dimin- 
ishing. There  continues  to  be  a  great  deal  of  experimentation  with 
marihuana,  but  a  smaller  percentage  of  marihuana  experimenters 
will  utilize  drugs  such  as  hashish.  So,  I  think  in  terms  of  the  cur- 
rent epidemiologic  studies  it  is  improper  to  suggest  that  virtually 


38 

everybody  who  uses  marihuana  will  also  play  around  with  hashish. 
Certainly  in  our  study  that  is  not  true,  and  the  figure— marihuana 
smokers  who  use  hashish— ranges  from  12  to  about  50  percent,  de- 
pending on  the  school  group  studied. 

Third,  the  girls  have,  by  and  large,  now  caught  up  to  the  boys, 
and  in  some  areas  surpassed  them  in  overall  prevalence  of  non- 
medical drug  use. 

In  regard  to  marihuana,  there  is,  of  course,  a  continuing  contro- 
versy over  its  legalization.  It  seems  to  me  that,  thus  far,  the  deci- 
sions have  been  made  without  serious  consideration  of  the  two  maior 
issues.  Surely,  we  would  all  agree  the  drug  is  neither  horrendouslv 
dangerous  nor  perfectly  safe,  but  this  has  been  known  for  oyer  100 
years.  The  two  egregiously  neglected  issues  are  (a)  the  relationship 
between  use  of  marihuana  and  the  use  of  a  drug  such  as  LSD,  and 
(b)  the  number  of  intoxicants  we  wish  for  general  use  in  our  society. 

We  have  been  particularly  interested  in  seeing  whether  there  is 
a  relationship  between  the  frequency  of  marihuana  use  and  subse- 
quent use  of  LSD.  We  have  carried  out  three  epidemiologic  studies, 
all  of  which  show  similar  results  and  are  appended  as  graphs  1  to 
4.  It  may  be  seen  that  the  more  often  marihuana  is  used,  the  more 
likely  it  is  that  an  individual  will  experiment  at  least  once  with 
LSD.  In  one  of  the  three  studies,  for  example,  the  infrequent  user 
of  marihuana  had  a  4  percent  likelihood  of  using  LSD;  for  the 
monthly  user,  the  chance  of  using  LSD  increased  to  9  percent;  the 
weekly  marihuana  user  had  a  22  percent  likelihood  of  experimenting 
with  LSD,  and  among  those  who  used  marihuana  more  than  once  per 
week,  the  likelihood  of  trying  LSD  increased  to  44  percent.  The  results 
in  the  other  two  studies  we  have  carried  out  were  similar.  In  fact  the 
daily  marihuana  user  in  the  studies  we  performed,  and  various  studies 
across  the  country  that  were  performed  has  a  likelihood  of  using 
LSD  somewhere  between  65  and  85  percent. 

Mr.  Sottrwine.  In  the  use  of  LSD? 

Dr.  Lotjria.  Eight. 

In  the  absence  of  contravening  data  and  in  the  presence  of  other 
supporting  studies,  the  relationship  we  have  found  between  mari- 
huana and  the  more  dangerous  drug,  LSD,  appears  reasonablv 
secure.  We  do  not  imply  that  marihuana  use  compels  use  of  more 
dangerous  drugs.  In  fact,  excluding  the  daily  marihuana  user,  the 
majority  of  those  smoking  marihuana  will  not  use  LSD  or  similar 
drugs.  Furthermore,  as  I  emphasized  before,  our  data  suggest  that 
the  relationship  between  marihuana  and  hashish,  or  marihuana  and 
LSD  is  actually  diminishing,  not  increasing,  as  far  as  our  studies 
are  concerned. 

However,  the  relationship  between  regular  use  of  marihuana  and 
the  use  of  LSD  subsequently  does  exist ;  and  this  fact  virtually  man- 
dates further  analyses.  We  obviously  must  look  at  the  possible  rea- 
sons for  this  relationship,  and  we  must  ask  ourselves  whether  mari- 
huana legalization  would  inadvertently  bring  with  it  the  increased 
use  of  more  dangerous  agents  such  as  LSD.  In  any  case,  we  should 
not  legalize  it  until  we  have  carefully  looked  at  the  relationship  and 
decided  precisely  what  it  means,  and  what  it  portends. 


39 

The  second  major  issue  to  me  is  the  overriding  one.  This  is  the 
number  of  intoxicants  we  wish  in  our  society.  Currently,  we  have 
three  major  legal  drugs  of  pleasure,  caffeine,  nicotine,  and  alcohol. 
Caffeine  is  relatively  safe;  nicotine  is  said  to  cost  us  between  60,000 
and  300,000  deaths  and  $19  billion  in  economic  loss  each  year;  alco- 
hol costs  us  at  least  40,000  and  probably  nearer  100,000  lives  yearly 
and  at  least  $15  billion  in  economic  loss  per  year.  The  question  is. 
do  we  wish  to  add  a  fourth  intoxicant,  marihuana,  to  our  other  three  ? 

If  we  do  legalize  marihuana,  we  will  impose  this  fourth  intoxicant 
on  our  children,  grandchildren  and  great  grandchildren,  for  once  a 
new  intoxicant  is  legitimatized  and  accepted  by  the  public,  it  can- 
not subsequently  be  arbitrarily  proscribed.  That  is  what  we  learned 
from  prohibition.  The  obvious  question  is,  how  many  intoxicants  can 
we  have  for  general  use  and  still  remain  a  vigorous  and  productive- 
society?  No  society  can  afford  an  unlimited  number  of  unrestricted 
intoxicants.  It  seems  to  me  we  need  to  consider  this  very  carefullv 
indeed.  George  Bernard  Shaw  said,  "We  are  made  wise  not  by  the 
recollections  of  our  past  but  by  the  responsibilities  of  our  future." 
It  is  not  our  present  pleasures  that  should  be  our  major  concern, 
but  rather  the  effect  a  fourth  legal  intoxicant  will  have  on  the  well- 
being,  happiness  and  prosperity  of  future  generations. 

It  is  important  to  stress  that  the  only  question  before  our  societv 
is  whether  to  add  new  intoxicants  to  those  already  troubling  us.  I 
personally  believe  this  is  the  wrong  question.  What  we  should  be 
considering  is  substitution  of  less  toxic  pleasure-giving  substances 
for  alcohol  and/or  tobacco.  It  is  after  all  somewhat  mind-boggling 
to  realize  that  in  the  United  States  there  are  about  2  million  deaths 
each  year  and  that  somewhere  between  5  and  15  percent  of  these  can 
be  directly  or  indirectly  attributed  to  alcohol  and  tobacco. 

In  preparation  for  this  I  rearranged  some  of  our  fatality  statistics 
for  each  year  and  came  up  with  some  data  intriguing  to  me,  namely 
that  our  legal  intoxicants  cause  more  deaths  than  all  diseases,  in- 
cluding pneumonia  and  tuberculosis  reported  yearly  by  the  Center 
for  Disease  Control.  Indeed,  if  we  do  rearrange  these  figures  to 
allow  these  intoxicants  as  listed  as  a  cause  of  death,  the  five  leading 
causes  of  death  in  the  United  States  are:  (1)  heart  disease,  (2)  cancer, 
(3)  stroke,  (4)  legal  intoxicants,  and  (5)  accidents.  And  we  are  talk- 
ing about  adding  more  intoxicants. 

It  seems  to  me  only  prudent  and  logical  to  concentrate  more  on 
reducing  the  morbidity  and  mortality  from  legal  intoxicants  before 
adding  new  ones  with  their  own  dangers.  The  only  new  intoxicant 
that  could  be  added  without  much  debate  would  be  the  one  that  is 
turly  harmless  and  marihuana  is  clearly  not  innocuous.  I  personallv 
would  like  to  see  us  consider  substituting  two  less  toxic  agents  for 
alcohol  and  tobacco,  or  alternatively,  we  could  consider  substituting 
marihuana  for  alcohol  and  modifying  tobacco  to  reduce  its  cardio- 
vascular toxicity  and  its  cancer  causing  proclivities. 

Whatever  the  decision,  it  should  be  based  on  a  careful  and  dis- 
passionate consideration  of  the  number  of  intoxicants  available  in 
our  society,  their  relative  risks,  and  our  legitimate  needs  for  mind- 
altering,  pleasure-giving  substances.  I  do  not  feel  there  is  anything 
particularly  arcane  or  complicated  about  the  marihuana  issue.  Surely, 


40 

we  ought  to  be  able  to  approach  it  intelligently,  make  sensible  deci- 
sions and  then  utilize  our  energies  to  solve  the  far  more  important 
problems  facing  our  society,  which,  if  allowed  to  fester,  threaten 
both  our  meliorism  and  our  future. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much,  Dr.  Louria.  Before  I  proceed 
with  the  questions,  I  believe  you  provided  some  charts,  the  first  of 
which  is  the  relation  of  frequency  of  marihuana  use  to  likelihood 
of  LSD  use. 

Dr.  Louria.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  It  shows  an  upward  curve — the  more  marihuana  is 
smoked,  the  more  likely  they  are  to  indulge,  experimentally  or  re- 
peatedly, in  LSD  use.  Why  do  you  think  there  is  a  special  relationship 
between  marihuana  use  and  LSD  use? 

Dr.  Louria.  Let  me  emphasize  first  that  we  have  two  somewhat 
opposing  trends.  One  is,  as  I  indicated  in  my  testimony,  that  experi- 
mentation continues,  although  leveling  off;  and  within  the  experiment- 
ing group  the  relationship  between  occasional  experimentation  with 
marihuana  and  utilization  of  the  other  drugs  is  diminishing,  not 
increasing. 

On  the  other  hand,  among  those  who  utilize  marihuana  regularly, 
the  relationship  between  that  and  the  utilization  of  LSD  persists. 

Now,  your  question  is  why,  and  we  don't  have  the  answer,  and 
nobody  else  has  the  answer.  I  think  we  can  say  that  the  first  graph 
indicates  that  this  is  by  and  large  a  straight  line  relationship;  the 
more  frequently  you  use  marihuana,  the  more  the  likelihood  is  that 
you  will  use  LSD ;  there  is  a  clear  statistical  correlation. 

Does  this  mean  that  marihuana  drives  one  to  LSD?  Of  course 
not.  There  are  at  least  seven  potential  reasons  to  explain  this  rela- 
tionship, and  in  fact  two  of  them  could  be  utilized  favorably  in  the 
argument  for  legalization  of  marihuana;  those  two  include  first  the 
concept  of  the  thrill  of  illegality.  In  other  words,  once  you  use  the 
drug  you  then  are  beyond  the  pale  of  what  is  accepted  as  normal 
in  society;  and  it  is  more  easy  then  for  you  to  slip  into  the  use  of 
other  illegal  drugs. 

Second,  the  same  person  who  sells  you  marihuana  sells  you  LSD, 
therefore,  remove  marihuana  from  the  illegal  relationship  with  LSD 
and  you  break  that  chain. 

The  other  five  potential  reasons  would,  to  me  anyway,  militate 
against  the  legalization  of  marihuana.  The  first  of  these  is  curiosity, 
one  of  the  major  reasons  for  the  use  of  illicit  pleasure-giving  drugs 
in  our  society.  An  ancient  saying  that  goes,  "A  man  should  live  if 
only  to  satisfy  his  curiosity".  That  in  itself  may  explain  a  good  deal 
of  this  relationship. 

Second  is  hedonism — that  is  we  are  very  much  a  pleasure-oriented 
society  that  has  a  great  deal  of  difficulty  in  subordinating  its  pleas- 
ure to  goal-directed  activities.  And  if  a  society  is  concentrating  as 
much  as  we  are  on  pleasure,  it's  almost  inevitable  that  those  who 
enjoy  mind  alteration  of  one  kind,  such  as  marihuana,  and  use  it 
regularly,  will  opt  for  more  potent  drugs  that  produce  similar 
"hidis".* 

Third  is  the  influence  of  the  peer  group.  Our  study,  and  every 
study  performed  across  the  country,  indicates  that  if  you  are  in  a 


41 

multidrug  using  peer  group  you  are  much  more  likely  to  be  a  multi- 
drug user. 

Fourth,  I  think  that  10  years  from  now  we  might  find  that  there 
are  valid  biochemical  or  physiologic  interrelationships  between  a 
drug  such  as  marihuana,  and  a  drug  such  as  LSD.  I  emphasize,  there 
is  not  one  iota  of  evidence  now  to  support  that  hypothesis,  but  I 
think  it  is  possible  that  there  is  a  relationship. 

Fifth,  I  think  it  is  terribly  important  to  emphasize  that  at  least 
in  our  experience  and  the  experience  of  others,  among  those  with 
substantial  covert  or  overt  psychological  abnormalities  use  of  one 
drug  is  often  followed  rapidly  by  multidrug  use.  I  have  always  felt 
that  those  who  urge  the  legalization  of  marihuana  were  frequently 
at  least  suggesting  that  an  individual  could  always  decide  his  drug 
use  on  a  volitional,  carefully  thought  out  basis.  That  just  is  not  true 
for  people  who  have  psychological  problems.  We  have  found  that 
they  are  often  virtually  propelled  into  severe  multidrug  use. 

Again,  I  have  to  emphasize  that  we  have  no  specific  knowledge 
why  this  relationship  between  marihuana  and  LSD  exists.  What 
bothers  me — and  I  must  say  it  bothers  me  about  the  Commission 
report,  as  I  testified  before,  is  that  the  report  talked  about  an  ana- 
chronistic and  invalid  relationship  between  marihuana  and  heroin. 
We  always  maintained  there  was  no  significant  relationship  be- 
tween marihuana  use  and  heroin  use,  and  that  is  still  true;  but  for 
the  life  of  me  I  can't  understand  why  the  National  Commission 
would  hear  noncontravened  testimony  on  the  relationship  between 
a  different  drug,  LSD  and  not  even  mention  it  in  the  report,  in- 
stead discussing  only  this  old  relationship  long  shown  to  be  invalid, 
between  marihuana  and  heroin. 

Mr.  Martin.  Dr.  Louria,  I  will  just  ask  a  few  more  quick  ques- 
tions. We  have  one  more  witness,  and  we  will  have  to  move  on  as 
rapidly  as  possible. 

There  seems  to  be  a  rather  basic  conflict  between  the  picture  you 
presented — a  tapering  off  of  the  cannabis  epidemic  at  the  high 
school  level — and  the  statistics  that  were  presented  here  this  after- 
noon by  the  Drug  Enforcement  Agency,  showing  a  massive  increase 
in  interdiction  of  both  marihuana  and  hashish,  going  up  year  by 
year;  and  also  a  massive  increase  in  the  number  of  arrests  on  the 
Federal  and  local  levels  for  cannabis  offenses. 

Could  there  be  some  explanation  for  this?  For  example,  in  your 
own  report  you  made  the  point  that  girls  are  now  using  a  lot  more 
marihuana  than  they  used  to,  and  have  caught  up  pretty  well  with 
the  boys.  So,  while  the  boys  have  tapered  off,  the  girls  may  have 
compensated  ? 

Dr.  Louria.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  addition  to  that,  your  report  doesn't  make  any 
reference  to  the  phenomenon  of  marihuana  increase  in  grade  schools, 
and  actually  there  is  very  little  research  material  on  that?  I  think 
you  will  agree  with  that. 

Dr.  Louria.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  We  know  it's  there,  we  know  that  a  lot  of  it  has 
gotten  down  to  the  fourth  and  fifth  grade  level;  but  we  don't  have 
any  statistics  on  it. 


42 


Dr.  Louria.  Well- 


Mr.  Martin.  There  is  a  substantial  amount  of  marihuana  beinsr 
consumed  at  the  grade  school  level,  but  we  don't  have  any  serious 
calculations  on  that,  or  estimates ;  would  you  agree  with  that  ? 

Dr.  Louria.  I  would  agree  with  that  to  the  extent  that  we  have 
studied  junior  high  schools. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  am  talking  about  grade  schools. 

Dr.  Louria.  Well,  we  find  the  utilization  in  the  suburban,  pre- 
dominantly white  schools  that  we  studied  in  the  junior  high  schools, 
of  small  amounts.  So,  there  was  no  reason  at  all  in  our  commu- 
nities to  study  grade  schools.  I  personally  think  there  is  exaggera- 
tion about  how  severe  the  problem  is  in  the  grade  schools.  At  least 
in  the  majority  of  communities  it  is  really  a  very  small  problem. 
And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  there  is  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  data 
developed  by  the  law  enforcement  agencies.  We  are  measuring  differ- 
ent things  and  there  are  bound  to  be  discrepancies  until  the  pheno- 
mena are  analyzed  over  a  prolonged  period.  So,  I  don't  see  any  dis- 
parity between  those  data,  and  the  data  I  presented. 

Mr.  Martin.  One  more  question.  There  is  another  unmeasured 
area.  It  is  generally  agreed  that  marihuana  has  also  moved  upward 
into  the  ranks  of  adult  society.  People  are  now  indulging  in  both 
marihuana  and  hashish,  something  they  didn't  do  10  years  ago.  The 
estimates  that  have  been  made,  surveys  that  have  been  conducted, 
by  and  large  don't  touch  this  group.  This  is  another  area  where 
there  may  have  been  a  substantial  increase  in  cannabis  use  without 
any  accurate  ability  to  accurately  assess  it. 

Dr.  Louria.  Oh,  yes;  I  don't  think  there  is  any  question  about 
that,  a  substantial  part  of  the  increase  you  have. been  talking  about 
may  be  related  to  chronic,  but  not  ordinarily  heavy  use  in  the  post- 
college  age. 

Mr.  Martin.  Right.  One  final  question,  and  then  we  will  have  to 
move  on  to  our  next  witness. 

You  spoke  of  the  possibility  of  substituting  marihuana  for  alcohol 
as  an  intoxicant.  Do  you  think  that  is  a  realistic  proposal  in  view 
of  the  political  and  social  and  other  difficulties  affecting  such  a 
substitution  ? 

Dr.  Louria.  No,  I  don't  think  that  is  likely  going  to  come  to  pass, 
and  I  would  personally  oppose  it  on  the  grounds  that  marihuana 
isn't  safe  enough  to  be  substituted  for  alcohol.  The  only  point  I 
would  like  to  stress  is  that  I  don't  think  we  can  look  at  marihuana 
in  a  parochial  fashion.  You  have  to  do  it  in  terms  of  our  total  in- 
toxicants, and  the  question  of  substitution  to  me  is  a  very  germane 
one.  I  can't,  for  the  life  of  me,  figure  out  why  a  society  allegedly  as 
intelligent  as  ours  should  tolerate  hundreds  of  thousands  of  deaths 
a  year  due  to  our  legitimate  intoxicants.  I  think  there  is  something 
we  can  do  about  that,  either  by  substitution,  or  more  effective 
education. 

Mr.  Martin.  But  not  by  the  substitution  of  marihuana? 

Dr.  Louria.  No,  I  just  put  that  in  as  something  that  people  talk 
about.  My  own  convictions,  are  parallel  to  the  other  witnesses  this 
morning,  especially  what  Dr.  Brill  just  said,  namely  that  marihuana 


43 

has  enough  dangers  so  that  it  would  not  be  a  proper  drug  in  the 
present  form  to  substitute  for  alcohol. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much,  Dr.  Louria. 

Gen.  Frank  B.  Clay,  of  the  U.S.  Army  is  our  final  witness. 

General  Clay,  in  the  interest  of  expediting,  I  would  suggest  that 
instead  of  spending  the  time  to  establish  your  qualifications  you 
provide  a  brief  resume  for  the  record.  Is  that  acceptable  to  you? 

General  Clay.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record? 

TESTIMONY  OF  MAJ.  GEN.  FRANK  B.  CLAY 

General  Clay.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  Major  General  Frank  B.  Clay, 
Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense,  Drug  and  Alcohol  Abuse; 
it  is  a  pleasure  to  be  here  today. 

As  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Drug  and  Alcohol 
Abuse,  I  am  responsible  for  the  prevention  of  drug  abuse  in  the 
armed  services  through  education  programs,  the  identification  of 
service  members  who  abuse  dangerous  drugs  and  alcohol,  and  the 
short-term  rehabilitation  of  those  military  drug  abusers  who  will 
cooperate  with  their  own  treatment. 

While  DOD  continues  to  vigorously  investigate  and  prosecute 
serious  instances  of  criminal  drug  abuse,  such  as  selling  and  traffick- 
ing, that  area  is  outside  my  realm  of  responsibility.  These  subjects 
can  best  be  discussed  by  representatives  from  the  Office  of  the 
Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense  for  Administration  who  are 
concerned  with  law  enforcement  and  are  scheduled  to  appear  before 
you  at  a  later  date. 

As  is  the  case  with  all  drugs  of  abuse,  the  use  of  cannabis  in  any 
form  continues  to  be  regarded  as  a  violation  of  the  Uniform  Code 
of  Military  Justice.  While  the  Department  of  Defense  does  not 
condone  nor  tolerate  the  use  of  any  psychotropic  or  mind-expanding 
drug  by  its  members,  we  are  aware  that  many  impressionable  young 
people  are  caught  up  in  drug  abuse  through  peer  pressures,  ioneli- 
ness,  boredom,  and  a  high  degree  of  exposure  in  certain  foreign 
lands.  These  young  people  are  certainly  not  criminals,  but  young 
Americans  who  may  have  been  exposed  to  drug  abuse  on  our  high 
school  and  college  campuses. 

We,  therefore,  have  made  a  deliberate  effort  to  use  a  firm  but 
humanitarian  approach  to  the  identification,  treatment,  and  re- 
habilitation of  these  young  service  members,  and  have  resorted  to 
disciplinary  action  only  as  a  last  resort  in  those  instances  not  in- 
volving purely  personal  use  or  possession  for  personal  use. 

Despite  this  revised  approach  during  the  last  3  years,  we  believe 
that  the  use  of  cannabis  or  its  derivatives,  or  any  other  harmful 
drug  is  incompatible  with  our  military  missions.  In  some  instances 
where  we  are  unable  to  successfully  treat  a  service  member  for  drug 
abuse,  we  find  it  necessary  to  discharge  that  person  from  the 
service  with  a  referral  to  the  Veterans'  Administration  for  the  long- 
term  treatment  DOD  is  unable  to  provide.  This  is  the  Department 
of  Defense  Policy  now  in  force  with  regard  to  cannabis  and  all 
other  dangerous  substances.  This  policy  includes  measures  to  pre- 


44 

elude  the  service  entry  of  habitual  drug  abusers  by  thorough  screen- 
ing and  interview  at  the  Armed  Forces  Examining  Entrance  Sta- 
tions; to  prevent  drug  abuse  through  a  vigorous  education  program 
at  all  levels ;  to  identify  drug  abusers  through  our  urinalysis  screen- 
ing program  and  other  methods ;  to  provide  a  voluntary  self-referral 
to  treatment  program  which  guarantees  exemption  from  punitive 
action  for  personal  use  and  possession;  and,  finally,  to  treat  and 
rehabilitate  those  drug  abusers  amenable  to  such  effort  to  restore 
them  as  useful  members  of  society  without  their  records  reflecting 
drue:  abuse. 

The  abuse  of  cannabis  continues  to  be  of  a  serious  nature  in  the 
Armed  Services:  but  since  we  are  unable  to  chemically  detect  this 
drug  in  body  fluids  as  we  can  morphine-based  drugs,  amphetamines, 
and  barbiturates  in  our  urinalysis  screening  program,  we  have  no 
irood  reliable  data  on  the  incidence  of  the  abuse  of  this  drug  in  the 
Armed  Services.  However,  the  U.S.  Army  in  Europe,  a  location 
where  the  incidence  of  cannabis  abuse  is  believed  to  be  hierh,  has 
conducted  a  continuing  survey  of  its  personnel — and  the  results  are 
in  exhibit  1. 

TABLE  l.-CANNABIS  USE  BY  USAREUR  PERSONNEL  (SURVEY  DATA) 


Average  all  ages  February  1974  survey  by  age  groups 


Feb- 
Januarv    August      ruarv 
Previous        1973       1973       1974    20  and  25  and 

Frequency  of  use  surveys    survey    survey    survey      under     21-22     23-24        older 


Cannabis:                                                          ._....«  „  ,          1C            0            ■>             s 

Daily  (in  percent) 10-15           10  8  7           15            9            3              3 

At  least  once  (in  percent) 40           48  53  K-        78           62           47             II 

Usable  survey  responses. 16,700     1,374  1,463     1,759 - -- 

Source:  Commandwide  sample  survey  of  cannabis  use  by  U.S.  Army,  Europe  (USAREUR)  personnel.  Data  provided  by 
headquarters,  USAREUR. 

The  February  1974  results  show  that  7  percent  of  those  surveyed 
admitted  to  the  daily  use  of  cannabis  and  46  percent  of  those  sur- 
veyed stated  that  they  had  tried  cannabis  at  least  once.  Even  though 
this  survey  was  a  relatively  small  one  with  under  1,800  respondents, 
the  true  incidence  rate  of  cannabis  use  of  other  than  an  experi- 
mental nature  will  probably  be  somewhere  between  these  two  rates. 
T  have  included  as  exhibit  2  some  other  survey  data  which  may  also 
be  pertinent. 

WORLDWIDE  SAMPLE  SURVEY  REPORTING  MARIHUANA  USE  AMONG  ARMY  ENLISTED  GRADES  FEBRUARY  1974 

TABLE  2.-SELF-REP0RTING  OF  THE  USE  OF  MARIHUANA  OR  HASHISH  DURING  THE  LAST  6  MONTHS  BY  ENLISTED 

GRADE 

Note:  Survey  question:  Which  term  best  describes  your  use  of  marihuana  or  hashish  during  the  last  6  months7 


Total 

Re- 

E-l         E-2         E-3         E-4         E-5         E-6         E-7         E-8    sponses 


Never  48.2  55.6  55.8  65.2  85.0  94.8  96.6  96.4  69.4 

Rarely 14.9  13.2  12.1  11.3  6.1  2.1  1.7  .4  9.4 

Sometimes"" " 19-4  15.8  15.3  11.0  5.6  1.8  1.0  1.2  10.8 

55 :::::::::::::::::::::::::  5  15.4  ie.8  n.e  3.3  1.3  .7  2.0  10.4 


Note:  Total  sample  population  13,070. 


45 

You  may  also  be  interested  to  know  that  even  though  we  are 
presently  unable  to  detect  cannabis  in  our  drug  screening  program, 
ongoing  research  by  a  major  pharmaceutical  firm  holds  the  promise 
of  a  radioimmunoassay  test  which  will  identify  the  heavy  users  of 
cannabis  products,  such  as  hashish  or  oil  of  hashish.  AH  of  our 
drug  screening  laboratories  are  now  being  converted  to  the  radio- 
immunoassay technology  at  the  present  time,  and  we  will  be  ready  to 
apply  this  test  as  a  very  fine  deterrent  if  a  successful  assay  is  developed. 

The  derivatives  of  cannabis  also  pose  special  problems  for  the 
Armed  Forces  which  were  not  expressed  in  the  Shafer  Commission 
report  of  1973.  As  you  know,  the  basic  active  ingredient  in  plants 
of  the  genus  cannabis  is  tetrahydrocannabinol  or  THC.  Most 
ground  marihuana  as  presently  used  in  this  country  contains  from 
about  0.5  to  2.0  percent  THC.  Hashish,  the  dark  brown  resin  col- 
lected from  the  tops  of  cannabis  plants  contains  about  10  percent 
THC  Hashish  oil  of  cannabis,  produced  in  a  manner  similar  to  the 
percolation  of  coffee,  yields  an  even  more  potent  dose  which  may  be 
as  high  as  90  percent  THC.  Because  of  this  extraordinary  potency, 
one  small  drop  of  the  oil  placed  on  a  regular  cigarette  and  smoked 
can  make  an  impressive  "high".  These  two  highly  potent  derivatives 
of  cannabis  certainly  pose  a  much  greater  danger  to  service  mem- 
bers than  just  the  casual  use  of  plain  ground  marihuana,  regardless 
of  the  psychological  or  physiological  effects  which  may  exist  with 
cannabis  in  its  unmodified  form. 

As  to  the  physical  impact  of  cannabis  used  in  small  amounts  by 
the  casual  or  recreational  user,  it  may  interfere  to  a  degree  with 
physical  performance  which  depends  upon  visual  function.  In  rela- 
tively high  doses  which  are  common  to  the  daily  user  of  hashish  or 
oil  of  hashish,  cannabis  regularly  produces  hallucinogenic  effects, 
abnormal  sensations  such  as  numbness,  difficulty  with  thinking,  con- 
centration or  speaking,  and  altered  perceptions. 

The  psvchological  impact  upon  service  members  is  analogous  to 
the  overall  effect  on  man  in  general  as  noted  by  other  research.  Can- 
nabis use  may  be  associated  with  certain  less  severe  psychological 
reactions,  such  as  depressive  and  panic  reactions,  particularly  in 
inexperienced  users.  There  is  evidence  which  suggests  that  sudden 
exposure  to  unusually  high  doses,  as  might  be  the  case  at  the  present 
time  with  hashish  as  used  by  the  newly  arrived  soldier  in  Germany, 
might  cause  a  toxic  psychosis.  Other  research  shows  that  it  is  also 
probable  that  cannabis  is  a  factor  in  some  cases  of  chronic  psychosis 
and  lack  of  motivation,  which  conditions  could  have  an  adverse 
effect  on  the  field  performance  of  service  members. 

The  essence  of  this  report,  therefore,  is  that  while  the  DOD  is  mak- 
ing vigorous  efforts  to  prevent  the  use  of  cannabis  products  by  service 
members  and  to  restore  to  effective  and  reliable  functioning  all 
individuals  identified  with  problems  attributable  to  cannabis  and 
other  drugs,  we  strongly  support  the  continued  control  of  all  canna- 
bis and  its  derivatives  as  dangerous  substances.  The  Department  of 
Defense  also  strongly  supports  the  continued  vigorous  investigation 
into  the  effects  of  cannabis  use.  The  results  of  such  research  can 


46 

have  an  important  bearing  on  the  future  combat  readiness  of  the 
armed  services. 

As  I  mentioned  before,  matters  involving  security  and  law  en- 
forcement as  related  to  the  use  of  cannabis  are  beyond  my  realm 
of  responsibility  in  the  Department  of  Defense.  However,  it  is  my 
personal  judgment  as  a  line  officer  of  some  experience  that  service 
members  who  habitually  use  cannabis  are  security  risks  in  certain 
assignments. 

In  anticipation  of  your  questions  regarding  psychological  and 
physiological  effects  of  cannabis  which  may  not  be  in  my  field  of 
expertise,  but  medical  in  nature,  I  have  brought  an  associate  with 
me,  Col.  John  J.  Castellot,  Sr.,  who  is  an  Army  medical  officer  and 
Chief  of  the  Office  of  Alcohol  and  Drug  Policy  in  the  Office  of  the 
Surgeon  General  of  the  Army. 

If  you  have  questions  other  than  those  involving  law  enforcement 
matters,  we  will  be  happy  to  answer  them  at  this  time. 

Senator  Eastand.  Thank  you,  General. 

Mr.  Martin.  General  Clay,  the  subcommittee  has  received  enough 
information  from  various  sources  to  indicate  that  the  cannabis  epi- 
demic is  creating  some  fairly  serious  security  problems.  We  have 
heard,  for  example,  of  service  members  who  have  been  involved  in 
trading  sensitive  information  for  bags  of  pot  or  hashish. 

Do  you  personally  know  of  such  cases?  I  am  not  asking  for  spe- 
cific case  histories  because  we  will  be  going  into  the  impact  of  can- 
nabis and  security  in  the  Armed  Forces  in  more  detail  in  executive 
session  later;  but  have  you  heard  of  such  cases? 

General  Clay.  I  have  heard  of  such  cases  second-hand.  I  have  no 
direct  knowledge  of  them. 

Mr.  Martin.  Have  you  heard,  or  seen  any  reports  that  the  wide- 
spread distribution  of  pot  and  hashish  played  a  significant  role  in 
the  riots  aboard  an  aircraft  carrier  just  over  a  year  ago? 

General  Clay.  No,  I  haven't. 

Mr.  Martin.  This  is  one  of  the  matters  that  we  will  want  to 
look  into. 

General  Clay.  I  would  imagine  this  information  would  be  avail- 
able from  the  Navy's  drug  and  alcoholic  abuse  officers. 

Mr.  Martin.  Have  the  Armed  Forces  given  thought  to  the  point 
made  by  Dr.  Powelson  that  it  makes  people  more  suggestible,  more 
easily  manipulated  by  agitators? 

General  Clay.  I  think  there  has  been  thought  given  to  it,  but  that 
certainly  is  not  within  the  realm  of  my  responsibility. 

Mr.  Martin.  Right.  Isn't  it  true,  General  Clay,  that  the  U.S. 
Armed  Forces  in  Vietnam,  just  before  the  heroin  epidemic  broke, 
were  afflicted  with  a  major  epidemic  of  cannabis  abuse  ? 

General  Clay.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  Very  strong  cannabis,  on  the  average  5  percent  THC 
content.  And  it  was  bad  enough  so  that  in  some  units  it  seriously 
affected  their  fighting  ability '? 


47 

General  Clay.  We  understand  that  to  be  true. 

Mr.  Martin.  Now,  your  presentation  doesn't  make  it  quite  clear, 
General  Clay,  whether  the  Armed  Forces  have  experienced  the  same 
qualitative  escalation  from  marihuana  to  hashish  as  has  been  the 
case  in  the  civilian  sector.  Do  you  find  more  hashish  now  than  you 
found  previously? 

General  Clay.  I  think  so,  I  think  in  Germany  you  will  find  that 
hashish  is  the  principal  drug  of  abuse. 

Mr.  Martin.  Your  chart  in  exhibit  1  suggests  that  there  has  been 
a  marked  decline  in  cannabis  use  in  the  Armed  Forces  over  the  past 
several  years.  These  figures,  of  course,  are  based  on  voluntary  responses 
to  questionnaires,  are  they  not  ? 

General  Clay.  Yes,  they  are. 

Mr.  Martin.  Now,  this  chart  runs  completely  counter  to  the  charts 
about  the  civilian  sector  that  have  been  presented  today  by  the  Drug 
Enforcement  Administration.  On  page  5  of  your  statement  I  notice 
that  you  indicate  some  personal  skepticism  over  the  fact  that  only  7 
percent  of  the  servicemen  admitted  to  daily  use  of  cannabis;  and 
that  46  percent  stated  that  they  tried  cannabis  at  least  once. 

Now,  you  point  out,  and  I  think  correctly,  that  the  incidence  of 
use  other  than  of  an  experimental  nature  probably  would  be  some- 
where in  between  these  figures  ? 

General  Clay.  Right. 

Mr.  Martin.  What  this  adds  up  to,  really,  is  that,  in  the  absence 
of  something  like  the  urine  test  you  can't  get  an  accurate  picture 
from  a  voluntary  reporting  system? 

General  Clay.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  If  you  consider  the  cannabis  epidemic  the  biggest 
drug  problem  now  confronting  our  Nation  and  our  Armed  Forces, 
do  the  Armed  Forces  have  a  specific  educational  program  geared  to 
the  cannabis  epidemic? 

General  Clay.  Not  specifically  to  cannabis,  but  to  drugs  in  gen- 
eral, we  have  a  vigorous  and  widespread  educational  program  in  all 
of  our  service  schools  and  throughout  our  military  units. 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  there  any  emphasis  on  cannabis  ? 

General  Clay.  On  all  drugs.  Cannabis  is  not  singled  out  specifically. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  you  know  whether  this  program  is  kept  right 
up  to  date  with  new  scientific  information  on  the  adverse  effects  of 
cannabis  ? 

General  Clay.  Yes,  I  think  I  can  say  that  it  is.  If  there  is  new 
information  it  is  made  available  to  the  troops  in  the  field;  we  do 
our  best  to  keep  current. 

Mr.  Marten.  I  have  one  suggestion  I  would  like  to  offer.  You 
may  have  seen  the  report  of  recent  research  conducted  by  Dr. 
Kolodny  of  Masters  &  Johnson,  demonstrating  that  male  cannabis 
users  suffer  up  to  a  44  percent  drop  in  male  hormones;  and  the 
sperm  count  goes  down  to  the  point  where  heavy  users  become  clin- 
ically  sterile;   and  that  very  heavy  users   sometimes  become   im- 


48 

potent.  Wouldn't  that  information  have  a  lot  of  impact  on  the 
average  GI? 

General  Clay.  Yes,  I  am  sure  it  would;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact 
Dr.  Hardin  Jones  from  California,  Berkeley,  discussed  that  with 
members  of  my  office  and  our  troops  stationed  in  Germany. 

Mr.  Martin.  Dr.  Hardin  Jones,  by  the  way,  will  be  one  of  our 
witnesses  in  the  final  session  on  May  20th. 

Those  are  the  only  questions  I  have.  Mr.  Sourwine,  do  you  have 
any  questions? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  No. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  concludes  our  session,  General  Clay.  Thank  you 
very  much  for  coming  here,  and  I  want  to  thank  you  for  your 
testimony,  which  I  feel  is  very  useful. 

[Whereupon,  at  1 :20  p.m.,  the  subcommittee  adjourned,  subject  to 
the  call  of  the  Chair.] 


MARIHUANA-HASHISH  EPIDEMIC  AND  ITS  IMPACT  ON 
UNITED  STATES  SECURITY 


THUBSDAY,   MAY   16,    1974 

U.S.  Senate, 
Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the 
Administration  of  the  Internal  Security  Act 

and  Other  Internal  Security  Laws 

of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  B.C. 
The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  notice,  at  10:35  a.m.,  in  room 
1224,  Dirksen  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Edward  J.  Gurney 
presiding. 

Also  present:  J.  G.  Sourwine,  chief  counsel  and  David  Martin, 
senior  analyst. 

Senator  Gurney.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order. 
Today  we  shall  be  continuing  our  hearings  on  the  marihuana- 
hashish  epidemic  and  its  impact  on  U.S.  security. 

The  hearing  today  will  focus  on  the  medical  effects  of  cannabis. 
For  the  purpose  of  this  hearing  we  have  brought  together  a  panel 
of  internationally  distinguished  scientists  who  have  done  major 
research  on  cannabis.  Among  them  are:  Prof.  Kobert  Heath. 
Dr.  Gabriel  Nahas,  Dr.  Akira  Morishima,  Dr.  Robert  Kolodny, 
Prof.  W.  D.  M.  Paton,  Dr.  Morton  Stenchever  and  Prof.  Cecile 
Leuchtenberger. 

The  marihuana-hashish  epidemic  began  as  part  of  the  Berkeley 
uprising  of  1964.  From  there  it  spread  out  to  the  other  campuses 
across  the  country.  Then  it  spread  down  into  our  high  schools — 
then  our  junior  high  schools — and  now  our  grade  schools.  It  has  also 
spread  upwards  into  the  ranks  of  our  middle  class  adults,  and  later- 
ally into  the  ranks  of  our  blue  collar  workers. 

The  charts  which  you  see  before  you  present  the  major  essential 
facts  about  the  scope  of  the  cannabis  epidemic. 

As  you  will  see,  over  a  5-year  period,  from  1969  to  1973,  inter- 
ceptions of  marihuana  by  Federal  agents  rose  tenfold  to  a  total  of 
782,000  pounds  last  year,  while  hashish  seizures  over  the  same  pe- 
riod rose  twenty-five-fold  to  a  total  of  53,300  pounds. 

These  are  staggering  figures — all  the  more  staggering  when  you 
consider  that  they  do  not  take  into  account  the  many  seizures  ef- 
fected by  local  law  enforcement  agencies,  and  when  you  consider, 
too,  that  probably  8  to  10  times  as  much  cannabis  gets  into  the 
country  as  is  seized  or  intercepted. 

(49) 


50 

What  this  means  is  that  the  United  States  last  year  probably 
consumed  in  excess  of  8  million  pounds  of  marihuana  and  60,000 
or  more  pounds  of  hashish. 

From  the  scientists  who  will  be  testifying  at  today's  hearings 
we  shall  be  learning  something  of  what  this  means  in  terms  of  the 
damage  done  to  the  bodies  and  minds  of  the  American  people. 

It  is  my  hope  that  today's  hearings  will  mark  the  beginning  of  a 
new  period  of  public  awareness. 

There  has  until  now  been  a  pervasive  impression  that  the  majority 
of  our  scientific  community  think  marihuana  isn't  really  too  harm- 
ful. This  feeling  has  been  shared  by  teenagers  and  adults,  by  aca- 
demicians and  newspapermen,  by  members  of  the  middle  class  and 
members  of  the  working  class.  This  is  the  principal  reason  for  the 
scope  of  the  present  epidemic. 

It  is  my  hope  that  the  hearings  which  we  shall  be  conducting 
today,  tomorrow,  and  Monday,  will  set  the  record  straight  on  this 
point. 

To  save  time,  I  would  ask  the  witnesses  to  rise  and  be  sworn  as  a 
group. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  the  witnesses  please  come  to  order  and  stand 
behind  their  name  plates? 

Senator  Gurnet.  Will  you  all  raise  your  right  hands  please. 

Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  are  about  to  give  will  be  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Dr.  Heath.  I  do. 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  do. 

Dr.  Morishima.  I  do. 

Dr.  Kolodny.  I  do. 

Dr.  Paton.  I  do. 

Dr.  Stenchever.  I  do. 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  I  do. 

Senator  Gurnet.  The  first  witness  will  be  Dr.  Robert  Heath.  Will 
you  identify  yourself  for  the  record,  please? 

TESTIMONY  OF  ROBERT  G.  HEATH,  M.D.,  D.M.SCI. 

Dr.  Heath.  My  name  is  Dr.  Eobert  Galbraith  Heath.  I  am  a  psy- 
chiatrist and  neurologist  and  chairman  of  the  Department  of  Psy- 
chiatry and  Neurology  at  Tulane  University  School  of  Medicine. 

My  training  background  is  in  neurology  from  the  Neurological 
Institute  of  New  York  and  in  psychiatry  from  the  Pennsylvania 
Hospital  in  Philadelphia,  and  in  psychoanalysis  from  the  Psychiatric 
Institute  of  Columbia  University  of  New  York. 

I  trained  in  research  in  neurophysiology  in  the  laboratories  of  the 
College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  at  Columbia  University  of  New 
York.  I  have  been  chairman  of  the  Department  of  Psychiatry  and 
Neurology  at  Tulane  since  January  of  1949  and  during  that  period, 
in  addition  to  teaching  and  practicing  psychiatry  and  neurology, 
have  been  involved  in  research  attempting  to  correlate  brain  activity 
with  behavioral  phenomena  and  to  investigate  the  basis  of  a  variety 
of  neurological  and  psychiatric  disorders. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Just  one  or  two  other  questions,  Dr.  Heath.  You 


51 

received  your  medical  degree  from  the  University  of  Pittsburgh  in 
1937,  is  that  correct  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  In  1938. 

Senator  Gurnet.  1938. 

Dr.  Heath.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  have  been  professor  and  chairman  of 
the  Department  of  Psychiatry  and  Neurology  at  Tulane  University 
School  of  Medicine  in  New  Orleans  since  1949  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  You  have  been  a  member  of  the  International 
Board,  Advisory  Board,  of  the  International  Journal  of  Neuropsy- 
chiatry since  1959,  is  that  correct?  You  are  a  member  of  the  Ad  Hoc 
Advisory  Committee  on  Schizophrenia  of  the  National  Institute  of 
Mental  Health,  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Heath.  Correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Did  you,  in  1972,  receive  the  Gold  Medal  Award 
of  the  Society  of  Biological  Psychiatry  for  pioneer  research  in  the 
field? 

Dr.  Heath.  Correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  are  you  the  author  of  several  books  in  the 
field  of  psychiatry  and  psychology? 

Dr.  Heath.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  the  author  and  co-author  of  approximately 
250  scientific  papers? 

Dr.  Heath.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Is  there  any  other  information  that  you  feel  the 
committee  ought  to  have  about  your  qualifications  as  an  expert  in  this 
field? 

Dr.  Heath.  I  can't  think  of  any  more,  Mr.  Gurney. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Will  you  proceed  with  your  statement  then,  Dr. 
Heath. 

Dr.  Heath.  Senator  Gurney  and  members  of  the  committee,  we 
have  been  involved  in  research,  as  I  have  indicated  here,  to  determine 
if  marihuana  or  the  principal  active  ingredient,  tetrahydrocanna- 
binol does,  indeed,  induce  objective  changes  in  brain  activity  and  in 
brain  structure ;  whether  or  not  marihuana  smoking  produces  severe 
behavioral  pathology  or  brain  damage,  or  both.  This  is  an  issue  that 
is  still  confused  and  unsettled  today.  Several  clinical  studies  have 
been  reported  in  the  scientific  literature  which  suggest  that  frequent 
and  prolonged  smoking  of  marihuana  has  deleterious  effects  on  be- 
havior and  the  brain.  Other  authorities  have  insisted  that  mari- 
huana is  an  innocuous  agent — that  reports  of  its  deleterious  effects 
have  failed  to  take  into  account  the  influence  of  several  variables, 
such  as  the  smoker's  use  of  other  drugs  or  his  preexisting  behavioral 
or  brain  abnormalities. 

The  most  notable  and  consistent  clinical  changes  that  have  been 
reported  in  heavy  marihuana  smokers  include  apathy  approaching 
indolence,  lack  of  motivation  often  referred  to  as  an  emotional  state, 
reduced  interest  in  socializing,  and  attraction  to  _  intense  sensory 
stimuli — they  like  to  listen  to  loud  music,  floating  lights,  and  so  on. 
Less  frequent  are  reports  of  overt  psychotic  behavior  characterized 


52 

by  losing  contact  with  reality,  having  hallucinations  and  so  forth, 
and  the  induction  of  dyskinesias — abnormal  muscle  movements. 

In  the  Tulane  laboratories,  data  gathered  from  a  small  number  of 
uncontrollable  epileptic  patients  who  were  undergoing  brain  surgery 
for  their  epilepsy,  have  revealed  consistent  alterations  in  function 
of  specific  deep  brain  sites.  Techniques  involved  in  the  treatment  of 
their  epilepsy  were  rather  unique.  Electrodes  were  implanted  into 
specific  structures  deep  in  the  brain  as  well  as  over  the  surface. 
With  these  techniques  we  were  able  to  obtain  information  on  brain 
function  that  could  not  be  obtained  with  the  more  conventional  re- 
cording techniques.  Some  of  the  patients  involved  were  chronic 
marihuana  smokers.  During  the  course  of  their  treatment,  we  per- 
mitted them  to  smoke  marihuana  cigarettes  while  recordings  were 
being  made,  with  these  special  techniques,  from  otherwise  unavail- 
able brain  sites.  The  deep  brain  sites  affected  by  the  smoking  were 
those  where  we  had,  over  the  years,  made  correlations  between  brain 
activity  and  alerting,  awareness,  and  feelings  of  pleasure. 

One  particular  region  of  the  brain  that  will  be  referred  to  fre- 
quently, is  the  septal  region.  Activity  in  this  region  has  been  con- 
sistently correlated  with  emotionality  and  feelings  of  pleasure.  In 
schizophrenic  patients,  this  region  functions  abnormally  and  this 
accounts  for  the  lack  of  pleasure  responsivity  in  the  schizophrenic. 
Because  it  is  connected  with  the  sensory  relay  nuclei,  the  systems 
for  perception  of  various  sensations  such  as  sound,  light,  touch,  and 
movement,  its  abnormal  functioning  affects  these  other  systems,  and 
this  can  account  for  the  disturbances  of  perception  such  as  the  hal- 
lucinations that  psychotic  patients  experience. 

This  region  was  affected  when  these  patients  smoked  marihuana. 
That  was  a  preliminary  study  and  on  the  basis  of  it,  we  elected  to 
do  more  intense  study  where  we  could  control  all  of  the  variables 
that  I  previously  mentioned.  This  degree  of  control  is  possible,  of 
course,  only  in  experiments  with  animals  and  could  not  be  done  with 
human  patients.  By  using  animals  we  were  able  to  eliminate  the 
variables — and  I  repeat  them — the  use  of  other  drugs  and  a  pre- 
disposition to  mental  or  emotional  illness. 

The  dosage  of  marihuana  smoked  in  these  monkeys  was  rigidly 
controlled  and  precise  methods  were  applied  for  studying  brain 
activity  in  the  animals;  parameters  for  study  which  could  not,  of 
course,  be  used  routinely  for  studying  marihuana  in  humans  since 
we  implanted  electrodes  into  the  brain.  The  question  for  which  we 
sought  an  answer  was:  "Does  marihuana  induce  significant  irre- 
versible effects  on  behavior  and  on  brain  function,  or  on  the  struc- 
ture of  the  brain?"  This  report  is  a  preliminary  survey  of  the  data 
collected  from  our  first  long-term  investigation,  now  nearing  com- 
pletion, of  the  effects  of  marihuana  in  rhesus  monkeys. 

Several  cannabis  preparations,  all  obtained  from  the  Narcotic 
Addict  Rehabilitation  Branch  of  the  National  Institute  of  Mental 
Health,  were  used  for  smoking:  marihuana  with  a  high  content  of 
delta-9  THC,  tetrahydrocannabinol;  inactive  marihuana,  devoid  of 
active  cannabis  compounds;  and  for  intravenous  injection,  pure 
delta-9  THC,  that  thought  to  be  the  most  important  active  ingredi- 
ent of  marihuana. 


53 

For  smoking  the  monkeys  with  marihuana,  a  special  apparatus, 
designed  in  our  laboratories  and  pictured  in  figure  1,  was  employed. 
If  you  have  any  questions,  Senator,  or  members  of  the  committee, 
please  interrupt  me  but  it  is  probably  better  to  explain  as  I  go  along. 
This  is  a  device  by  means  of  which  we  could  assure  the  delivery  of 
an  accurate  dose.  The  marihuana  to  be  smoked  was  assayed  to  quan- 
titate  the  active  ingredients,  then  an  exact  amount  was  weighed  out 
based  on  a  dosage  commensurate  with  the  known  dosage  of  mari- 
huana that  people  use,  the  same  amount  per  unit  of  body  weight. 
This  was  put  into  the  pipe  as  shown  here — figure  1 — and  attached 


54 

to  a  respirometer.  The  smoke  was  pulled  into  the  respirometer  by 
an  electric  motor  and  that  smoke  accumulated  in  the  respirometer  was 
then  delivered  into  the  monkey's  nasopharynx  through  this  tubing 
[photograph],  at  a  rate  commensurate  with  the  rate  of  inhalation 
of  human  smoking. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  it  be  the  order  of  the 
chairman  that  any  photographs,  charts,  tables  produced  by  the  wit- 
ness may  go  into  the  record. 

Senator  Gukney.  Yes,  it  is  so  ordered.  They  will  be  made  a  part 
of  the  record. 

Dr.  Heath.  Delta-9  THC,  the  presumed  important  active  compo- 
nent of  marihuana,  at  a  dose  relative  to  the  quantity  of  this  in- 
gredient absorbed  from  the  smoked  marihuana,  was  given  intra- 
venously through  an  indwelling  intravenous  cannula.  I  won't  detail 
the  methods  of  preparation.  Since  a  high  percentage  of  the  active 
ingredient  is  lost  in  smoking,  the  intravenous  dose  of  the  delta-9 
THC  was  determined  in  accordance  with  the  animal's  response.  The 
dose  was  approximately  18  percent  of  the  amount  of  THC  contained 
in  the  smoked  marihuana. 

For  control  smoking  with  inactive  marihuana,  the  amount  of 
starting  material  was  equated  with  the  amount  of  marihuana  and 
the  total  amount  of  marihuana  was  equated  with  the  amount  of  the 
raw  product  in  the  active  preparations. 

Ten  rhesus  monkeys  were  used  in  these  experiments,  some  pre- 
pared with  deep  and  surface  brain  electrodes  and  some  which  were 
unoperated  to  control  for  the  variable  of  the  effects  of  implanted 
electrodes.  There  are  sockets  that  can  be  plugged  into  and  the 
monkey  has  some  30  leads  in  various  predetermined  brain  sites  accu- 
rately implanted  by  a  special  device  we  use. 

Those  monkeys  that  were  operated  were  allowed  to  rest  for  at 
least  2  weeks  after  surgery  to  assure  they  were  fully  recovered  from 
implanting  the  electrodes  and  until  their  recordings  from  all  brain 
sites  had  returned  to  normal. 

The  procedures  used  in  this  investigation  enabled  us  to  learn  both 
the  immediate — acute — and  long-term — chronic — effects  of  mari- 
huana and  delta-9  THC  on  brain  function  and  behavior  of  monkeys. 
To  determine  the  effects  of  long-term  exposure,  one  group  of  mon- 
keys, which  corresponded  with  human  heavy  smokers  of  hashish,  a 
concentrated  cannabis  preparation,  was  smoked  three  times  per  day, 
5  days  a  week,  for  6  months;  another  group  which  corresponded 
with  moderate  human  hashish  smokers  was  smoked  two  times  a  week 
for  6  months.  The  amount  of  delta-9  THC  contained  in  the  material 
employed  for  the  moderate  hashish  smoking  corresponded  closely  with 
the  weekly  dose  levels  that  is  consumed  by  the  average  marihuana 
smoker  in  the  United  States.1  Two  monkeys  were  given  delta-9  THC 
once  each  day,  5  days  a  week  over  the  6-month  period. 

I  shall  talk  about  the  effects  of  marihuana  and  delta-9  first  as  a 
summary  statement  and  I  will  then  go  into  detail  on  each  aspect  of 
the  experiments — the  acute  aspect  and  the  chronic  aspect. 

With  exposure  to  the  smoke  of  active  marihuana,  all  monkeys  de- 


pose levels  correspond  to  those  In  clinical  study  by  Tennant.  F.  S.,  and  Groesbeck. 
C.  J.  Psychiatric  effects  of  hashish.  Arch.  Gen.  Psychiat.   27.-  133-136.  1972. 


55 

veloped  acute  [immediate]  distinct  alterations  in  behavior  and  those 
with  depth  electrodes  showed  significant  alterations  in  brain  record- 
ings. Similarly,  with  intravenous  administration  of  delta-9  THC, 
the  monkeys  developed  acute  [immediate]  changes  in  behavior  and 
in  brain-wave  activity  from  some  deep  brain  sites.  With  the  passage 
of  time,  these  monkeys ;  that  is,  those  exposed  to  the  smoke  of  active 
marihuana  and  those  given  injections  of  delta-9  THC  at  regular 
intervals,  developed  chronic  [persistent]  changes  in  brain  activity. 
These  changes  outlasted  the  immediate  period  of  an  hour  or  two 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  smoking  and  were  found  to  be  present 
up  to  5  days  later.  Those  monkeys  exposed  to  inactive  marihuana, 
that  is  with  the  active  ingredient,  THC  removed,  showed  neither 
acute  nor  chronic  effects. 

I'll  now  describe  the  acute  effects  in  detail.  For  this  I  refer  to 
figure  2.  The  acute  effects  of  marihuana  were  most  pronounced  in 
the  monkeys  during  the  early  exposures  to  the  smoke  and  became 
less  evident  with  passage  of  time,  that  is,  with  repeated  smoking. 
The  immediate  behavioral  effect  was  reduced  awareness.  They  were 
what  is  generally  referred  to  as  "stoned"  and  responded  less  to  all 
forms  of  sensory  stimuli,  tending  to  stare  blankly  into  space.  You 
could  stick  them  with  pins  or  put  your  finger  in  their  mouths  with- 
out concern,  and  this  is  impossible  with  normal  rhesus  monkeys  as 
they  are  rather  hostile  animals. 

Four  of  the  six  monkeys  in  this  group  were  prepared  with  depth 
electrodes  and  distinct  alterations  were  seen  in  recordings  from 
specific  deep  sites  of  their  brains — the  most  consistent  changes  oc- 
curing  in  the  septal  region,  hippocampus  and  amygdala.  If  you  look 
at  figure  2,  the  sixth  channel  down  is  the  hippocampus,  labeled  HIP. 

SMOKED    MARIHUANA 


F3  -T3 
F4-T4 
L  T  C»  -  R  0  Cx 

ROCi-RTCi 

TCG 

L  HIP 

R  LAT  AMY 
R  LAT  GEN 
R  A  SEP 
L  P  SEP 
L  MES  RET 
R  CUNEIF 

L  RAPHE 
L  A  HYP 
R  CBL  F« 
EKG 

TCG 


BASELINE 
PRE   MARIHUANA 

I 


ITJWrmTjTTTni 


F|!TTHT'pTn 


ACUTE  EFFECT 
574mfl/kg  tf-THC 

1  -■  -    •  '         .  ■  v  . '  •' v-V 


mrnimip.jYfiiniiii "'Jff jSTJ'P 


MONKEY    ZCIHA 


56 


A9-THC 


F3-T3 

F4-T4 

LTCi-RO 

ROCl-RT 

TCG 

L  HIP 

R  LAT  AMY 

R  LAT  GEN 

R  A  SEP 

L  PSEP 

I  MES  RET 

R  CUNEIF 

L  RAPHE 

L  A  HYP 

RCBL  FAS 

EKG 

TCG 


%v  yn'Fr'w.*  MM^**f*<HI* 


ACUTE  EFFECT 
POST  OTmfl/hg  IV  rf-THC 


V^w,-.'. '.'■■  ■  ■■■'  ■"■."'''.i'-'.'.v ■•**'•'.'.',.. xJnMUfI 


»«tfci>~»..w  w»hn«rlMK»|K!,M^^ 


TrTTT:l  r'TTimillllllllllllllllllll  hTTTrTTTTITTlTT' 


PRE  MARIHUANA 


F3-T3 

F4-T4 

L  T  Cx  -  R  0 

R  0  Cx  -  R  T 

TCG 

L  HIP 

R  LAT  AMY 
R  LAT  GEN 
R  A  SEP 
L  P  SEP 
L  MES  RET 
R  CUNEIF 
L  RAPHE 
L  A  HYP 
R  CBL  FAS 
EKG 

TCG 


I 


CHRONIC  EFFECT 

AT  24  WEEKS  (3X/OAY,  5  DAYS/WEEK) 

3.74mg/«g  rf-THC 

^\w*W"*1***',  'N*****  /X^"****"'  S|Ml»rt'*»-' 


r 

i 


44444444444444444444444444Tu4lw44- 


u^muuwxwuuuuuuuuuuli^^ 


TT|iTrrTr|-TiT,T  |||TimT^rnTrvM'M'Mi!'!":iiii' |PiruirTT;pr|>r.(iT 


MONKEY    ZCIHA 


57 

A'-THC 


CHRONIC  EFFECT 
BASELINE  »T  24  WEEKS  II  X/Mr.J  MrS/WEEK) 

PRE  tf-THC  OTmg/hg  I.V.  rf-THC 


F3-T3 


L  T  Ci - fi  0  Ci  /" "ss^--,v  ■         *  "^^./^v 

BOCl-BTCi    ,.». 


TCG 


R  LAT  AMY          n*****  -"'•  ^z^^/- Y'-SV'^^^^^^V^"",* vw'i--             V-**'.W'v — ^^>Vv^^V»^*'1^'-rf''^w^""'(~^vf™vH"VJ~ 
R  LAT  GEN  **y->.-Vi^JV"'-^V'/:^  ^a__~vv- — iV—-.1- — "-W^ — .V — .' ^A^ft*_^w»- 


L  MES  RET 
R  CUNEIF 
L  RAPHE 
L  A  HYP 


TCG 


■-minium mum  |im.-rrr  nui'minui 'viiiiiniiiiiiii:|ppif||fiilHpjjT 


MOIWEY    ZFI49 


Key  To  Brain  Wave  Tests 

1.  F3-T3 — Frontal  Cortex  to  Temporal  Cortex. 

2.  F4-T4 — Frontal  Cortex  to  Temporal  Cortex. 

3.  L  T  Cx-R  O  Cx— Left  Temporal  Cortex  to  Right  Occipital  Cortex. 

4.  R  O  Cx-R  T  Cx — Right  Occipital  Cortex  to  Right  Temporal  Cortex. 

5.  T  C  G — Time  Code  Generator   (for  computer). 

6.  L  HIP — Left  Hippocampus. 

7.  R  LAT  AMY— Right  Lateral  Amygdala. 

8.  R  LAT  GEN— Right  Lateral  Geniculate. 

9.  R  A  SEP— Right  Anterior  Septal. 

10.  L  P  SEP — Left  Posterior  Septal. 

11.  L  MES  RET — Left  Mesencephalic  Reticulum. 

12.  R  CUNEIF— Right  Cuneiformis  Nucleus. 

13.  L  RAPHE— Left  Raphe  Nucleus. 

14.  L  A  HYP — Left  Anterior  Hypothalamus. 

15.  R  CBL  FAS— Right  Ceribellum  Fastigius  Nucleus. 

16.  E  K  G — Electrocardiogram — Pulse. 

17.  T  C  G — Time  Code  Generator  (for  computer). 

Senator  Gurney.  Will  you  identify,  Doctor,  which  chart  you  are 
reading  from  now? 

Dr.  Heath.  This  is  figure  2.  It  is  headed  Smoked  Marihuana  Base- 
line on  the  left,  Acute  Effect  on  the  right. 

Senator  Gurney.  I  am  sorry. 

Dr.  Heath.  If  you  will  look  at  the  amygdala  and  the  hippocampus 
channels,  you  see  the  most  dramatic  changes.  There  are  changes  in 
other  sites' too,  but  of  a  much  lesser  magnitude.  Let  me  add  that  this 
is  a  very  inadequate  way  of  presenting  this  data  but  it  is  the  only 
way  I  can  under  the  circumstances.  When  we  do  a  recording  we 
record  for  at  least  20  minutes  and  usually  up  to  approximately  an 
hour  and  then  we  look  at  the  entire  record.  The  record  fluctuates — 
one  time  the  change  will  be  at  one  site  and  then  as  you  go  on  they 
will  shift  to  another  site  and  so  on,  and  the  only  way  you  can 
get  a  complete  and  comprehensive  picture  is  to  look  at  the  entire 
recording. 


58 

Another  way  to  get  a  comprehensive  picture  is  to  use  videotape 
and  if  the  committee  wishes,  I  can  provide  them.  We  use  a  split- 
screen  videotape  showing  the  animal  in  one  corner  and  the  ongoing 
record  on  the  rest  of  the  screen.  As  you  see  the  animal  displaying  the 
behavioral  effect  from  marihuana  smoke,  you  see  the  changes  coming 
on  in  his  brain  recording.  That  is  really  the  clearest  way  of  present- 
ing it.  But  here,  as  I  say,  we  have  an  inadequate  way  of  presenting  it 
as  it  is  just  a  very  brief  sampling  of  an  entire  record. 

You  can  see  under  the  acute  effects  of  marihuana  smoke  changes 
in  many  sites.  The  amygdala,  septal  and  hippocampus  show  the  most 
pronounced  changes  and  these  are  brain  areas  where  activity  has 
been  correlated  with  various  specific  emotional  states.  The  septal 
region  is  the  site  for  pleasure — stimulating  it  activates  pleasure 
feelings.  When  its  activity  is  impaired,  as  it  is  in  schizophrenia, 
you  have  a  lack  of  pleasure  and  a  reduction  of  awareness  towards  a 
sleepy,  dreamy  state.  The  changes  we  found  with  marihuana,  in  some 
ways,  resemble  the  changes  we  recorded  from  schizophrenics. 

Senator  Gurney.  Which  one  are  we  talking  about  now — which 
line? 

Dr.  Heath.  This  is  the  septal  recording — labeled  SEP — the 
eighth  and  ninth  channels.  As  I  say,  this  is  a  very  brief  sampling 
and  with  ongoing  records  there  are  changes,  but  of  a  lesser  degree, 
in  other  sites.  The  changes  are  increases  in  amplitude,  that  is,  the 
height,  and  in  frequency,  that  is,  the  length  of  the  wave. 

Senator  Gurney.  And  for  the  record,  I  am  asking,  I  understand 
but  I  am  asking  these  questions  so  that  we  can  set  the  record 
straight.  The  charts  on  the  left  are  the  normal  lines  before  the 
marihuana  was  smoked  and  the  lines  on  the  right  are  the  lines 
after  the  effects  of  the  smoking  marihuana,  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Heath.  That  is  correct.  But  I  wish  to  point  out  that  the  sites 
most  profoundly  affected  were  those  that  had  to  do  with  emotionality. 
To  repeat,  the  septal  region,  when  it  is  acutely  activated  as  with  an 
electrical  stimulus  or  with  chemicals,  induces  pleasure.  When  you 
spontaneously  feel  strong  pleasure,  it  produces  a  change  in  the  re- 
cordings. Contrariwise,  when  activity  in  the  septal  region  is  im- 
paired, then  there  is  a  reduction  in  pleasure  responsivity. 

With  the  acute  smoking  of  marihuana  you  do  get  a  pleasure 
response  in  humans  and  you  find  this  reflected  in  their  recordings. 
Iii  contrast  and  most  significant,  however,  is  the  finding  that 
with  chronic  usage  you  begin  to  get  recording  changes  indicating 
that  the  area  is  impaired  in  its  function  and  that  is  associated  with 
a  reduction  in  pleasure  responsivity,  a  lessening  of  motivation  and 
a  reduction  in  awareness.  That,  then,  is  the  acute  effect  of  smoking 
marihuana. 

I  will  reiterate  again  that  the  sites  that  had  to  do  with  emotionality 
are  directly  connected  with  the  relay  nuclei  in  the  brain  for  sensory 
perception.  This  is  a  possible  physical  explanation  for  the  finding 
that  when  emotionality  is  grossly  impaired  (whether  it  be  in  a 
schizophrenic  or  as  a  result  of  an  intoxicating  drug)  it  affects  the 
septal  region,  hippocampus  and  amygdala  and  is  often  accompanied 
by  hallucinations  and  the  other  altered  perceptions  which  these 
people  experience. 


59 

Mr.  Sotjkwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask  one  question  which  I 
think  will  help  the  record?  Doctor,  would  it  be  possible  for  you  to 
tell  us  as  you  did  with  respect  to  the  septal  region  what  controls  or 
reactions  are  specifically  associated  with  the  hippocampus  and  the 
amygdala? 

Dr.  Heath.  That  constitutes  approximately  25  years  of  work  and 
I  was  almost  hoping  you  wouldn't  get  into  that.  The  controls  have 
been  a  lengthy  background  of  experiments  with  hundreds  of  monkeys 
and  with  a  total  of  some  60  or  TO  human  subjects  in  whom  we  have 
implanted  electrodes  into  these  sites  in  a  treatment  program  for 
otherwise  unbeatable  neurological  diseases  and  some  psychiatric 
disorders.  We  have  techniques  by  which  we  implant  electrodes  into 
specific  sites  in  humans  for  treatment,  and  they  remain  in  place  for 
periods  up  to  a  year  or  more.  During  this  period  of  study  for  diag- 
nosis and  treatment,  we  have  been  able,  through  a  variety  of  tech- 
niques, to  establish  meaningful  correlations  between  brain  activity 
and  behavior.  For  example,  we  obtained  recordings  when  the  pa- 
tient was  in  different  mood  states  and  thereby  establish  correlations 
between  brain  activity  at  specific  sites  and  varying  mood  states.  We 
stimulated  a  number  of  specific  deep  sites  in  the  brain  and  we  were 
then  able  to  establish  how  that  alters  behavior.  We  have  admin- 
istered drugs  which  modify  behavior  and  further  established  the 
brain  changes  associated  with  those  behavioral  alterations.  This,  at 
best,  only  briefly  summarizes  the  extensive  background  work  that  we 
have  compiled  over  the  years  against  which  the  present  experiments 
are  being  conducted. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  it  fair  to  say,  sir,  that  the  question  I  asked  can- 
not be  simply  answered  as  in  the  case  of  the  septal? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes,  it  cannot  be  simply  answered.  It  would  take  a 
lengthy  dissertation  and  I  don't  believe  we  can  get  into  that  here. 
We  do,  however,  have  these  documented  on  film.  The  only  way  to 
know  what  is  going  on  in  the  mind  is  to  have  someone  that  can  talk 
to  you.  As  such,  animal  experiments  are  limited.  I  think  that  is  a 
general  statement  pertinent  to  the  information  you  are  seeking. 
Shall  I  proceed? 

It  is  important  to  point  out  that  no  consistent  or  notable  changes 
were  seen  in  the  scalp  recordings  of  these  four  monkeys  and  none 
were  seen  in  the  conventional  scalp  EEG  (electroencephalogram) 
recordings  obtained  from  the  two  unoperated  monkeys,  and  no  con- 
sistent changes  on  scalp  EEGs  have  been  reported  in  human  mari- 
huana smokers.  I  am  pointing  this  out  because  usually  the  only 
technique  that  can  be  applied  to  human  subjects  is  the  conventional 
scalp  EEG. 

These  acute  behavioral  changes  and  recording  changes  subsided 
within  1  hour  after  exposure  to  the  smoke. 

No  visible  changes  in  behavior  or  acute  changes  in  brain  record- 
ings were  obtained  in  monkeys  which  were  exposed  to  the  smoke  of 
inactive  marihuana,  suggesting  that  what  we  found  was  directly 
related  to  the  active  ingredients  in  the  marihuana.  Further  evidence 
was  the  active  ingredient,  delta-9  THC  administered  intravenously 
once  a  day,  5  days  a  week,  which  consistently  induced  distinct  and 


60 

immediate  changes  in  behavior  and  recordings  in  the  two  implanted 
monkeys.  These  effects  were  more  pronounced  than  those  obtained 
with  the  smoke  of  active  marihuana.  The  two  monkeys  were  more 
reduced  in  awareness  and  the  recording  changes,  while  occurring  in 
the  same  brain  structures  as  in  the  monkeys  which  were  smoked, 
were  more  profound.  The  changes  consisted  of  the  development  of 
frequent  high-amplitude  spiking,  most  pronounced  and  focal  in  the 
septal  region. 

This  is  the  brain  site  that  is  most  profoundly  affected  in  schizo- 
phrenia. Changes  with  delta-9  THC  were  more  focal  in  the  septal 
region  and  the  magnitude  of  the  change  was  somewhat  greater  than 
with  the  smoked  marihuana.  It  appears,  then,  that  this  produces  a 
more  potent  effect  on  this  pleasure  site;  first  turning  it  on  and  then 
with  overdosage  and  continued  usage,  it  seems  to  destroy  the  activ- 
ity of  this  site;  the  latter  state  being  similar  to  that  which  we  have 
in  some  psychotic  behavior.  These  recordings  resembled  those  we 
have  previously  obtained  from  the  septal  region  of  severely  disturbed 
psychotic  patients. 

The  chronic  effects,  which  I  think  may  be  most  pertinent  to  these 
hearings,  were  the  most  impressive  to  us.  Those  monkeys  prepared 
with  depth  electrodes  which  were  exposed  regularly  to  active  mari- 
huana (heavily  smoked — three  times  per  day,  5  days  a  week;  mod- 
erately smoked — two  times  a  week),  over  a  period  of  time  began  to 
show  evidence  of  irreversible  alterations  in  brain  function  about  3 
months  after  onset  of  the  experiment.  The  precise  brain  regions 
affected  were,  again,  the  septal  region,  hippocampus  and  amygdala. 
These  chronic  effects  were  manifested  by  the  recording  changes 
which  outlasted  the  acute  effects  of  the  smoke— that  is,  they  per- 
sisted through  the  weekends  when  the  monkeys  were  not  exposed  to 
smoke  for  2  days.  They  were  present  on  the  Monday  morning  follow- 
ing and  we  have  let  them  go  as  long  as  5  days  and  these  effects  were 
still  present.  It  appears  that  they  are  persistent,  but  to  say  that  they 
were  permanent,  requires  the  passage  of  more  time  and  further 
investigation.  Our  previous  experience  with  similar  situations  would 
lead  us  to  assume  that  this  chronic  smoking  of  marihuana  has  prob- 
ablv  produced  irreversible  changes  in  brain  function. 

It  was  interesting  to  us  that  these  distinct  and  persistent  brain 
alterations  were  temporarily  corrected,  being  replaced  by  a  different 
type  of  altered  brain  activity,  when  the  animals  were  again  ex- 
posed to  the  marihuana  smoke.  This  phenomenon  suggested  that  the 
marihuana  had  induced  permanent  changes  of  a  tvpe  that  could  be 
temporarily  alleviated  bv  acute  exposure,  seemingly  paralleling  the 
well-known  pattern  of  the  drug-dependent  person  who  gains  tempo- 
rary relief  from  deprivation  by  taking  more  of  the  drujr. 

In  two  unoperated  monkeys  which  were  heavily  smoked  with  ac- 
tive marihuana,  only  scalp  recordings  could  be  obtained;  no  changes 
were  reflected  in  these  conventional  recordings.  I  again  cite  the  im- 
potence of  phvsiological  techniques  of  only  scalp  recordings  used 
routinely  on  human  subjects.  That  is  the  reason,  of  course,  that 
people  report  often  that  there  are  no  changes  in  brain  functions. 


61 

They  use  a  scalp  EEG,  a  technique  which  is  unable  to  pick  up  these 
changes. 

Chronic  exposure  to  inactive  marihuana  smoke  did  not  produce 
notable  behavioral  or  recording  alterations  in  the  monkeys. 

Persistent  recording  changes  from  specific  deep  brain  sites,  the 
septal  region,  hippocampus  and  amygdala,  appeared  in  the  two 
monkeys  to  which  delta-9  THC  was  intravenously  administered  5 
days  a  week  in  2  to  3  months  after  the  study  began.  As  with  the 
monkeys  exposed  to  marihuana  smoke,  these  changes  persisted  over  the 
weekends.  You  will  note  in  figure  5  that  there  is  a  high  amplitude 
spiking  in  the  sixth  channel  indicating  a  change  in  the  hippocampal 
function. 

Also,  in  the  septal  leads  (9th  and  10th  channels),  you  will  find 
high  amplitude  sharp  spiking  and  this  has  a  great  deal  of  signifi- 
cance. This  is  what  we  refer  to  as  "epileptiform  activity"  and  indi- 
cates that  there  is  damage  to  that  site  or  the  cells  in  the  vicinity  of 
that  recording  electrode. 

With  regard  to  physical  complications  in  this  experiment,  two 
monkeys  out  of  the  10  died  during  the  course  of  these  studies.  Their 
recording  and  behavioral  data  are  included  in  the  effects  cited 
herein.  One  monkey  died  3!/2  months  after  onset  of  the  experiment 
and  the  other  animal  died  after  5y2  months  after  the  onset.  One  had 
implanted  electrodes  and  the  other  was  unoperated.  Both  were  in  the 
heavily  smoked  active  marihuana  group  (chronic  exposure)  and  both 
died  of  respiratory  complications. 

The  brains  of  these  two  animals  have  been  studied  histopathologi- 
cally  and  the  preliminary  report  indicates  minimal  structural  altera- 
tion of  cells  in  the  septal  region  of  the  brain. 

Our  protocol  requires  us  to  continue  to  study  the  behavioral  and 
recording  changes  in  the  surviving  monkeys  for  1  month  beyond  the 
drug  exposure  period  of  6  months.  At  that  point,  the  monkeys  will 
be  sacrificed  and  their  brains  will  be  carefully  perused  and  prepared 
for  study  by  electron  and  light  microscopy  to  yield  more  finite  data 
about  structural  changes  that  may  have  been  induced  in  association 
with  the  consistent  physiological  alterations  that  I  have  described. 

Regarding  behavioral  effects,  the  behavioral  data  concerned  with 
long-term  effects  of  marihuana  smoking  and  intravenous  delta-9 
THC  have  not  been  sufficiently  analyzed  to  report  them  at  this  time. 
There  are,  however,  behavioral  changes  which  have  been  documented 
which  are  not  solely  due  to  the  acute  effects  of  the  drug. 

In  summary  of  this  experiment  I  am  reporting  to  you  that  the 
smoke  of  active  marihuana,  that  is,  with  a  high  content  of  delta-9 
THC.  induced  in  the  rhesus  monkeys,  consistent  and  distinct  changes 
in  recordings  from  specific  deep  brain  sites  in  association  with  be- 
havioral alterations. 

(2)  When  the  monkeys  were  regularly  exposed  to  these  drugs, 
at  both  moderate  and  heavy  dose  levels,  persistent — perhaps  irre- 
versible— alterations  developed  in  brain  function  at  specific  deep 
sites  where  recording  activity  has  been  correlated  with  emotional 
responsivity,  alerting  and  sensory  perception. 


33-371    O  -  74  -  6 


62 

(3)  Heavy  smoking  of  active  marihuana  induced  respiratory  com- 
plications which  proved  lethal  to  two  monkeys  after  Sy2  to  5y2 
months. 

(4)  Preliminary  histopathological  data  suggest  that  structural 
alteration  of  cells  at  focal  brain  sites  may  be  associated  with  the 
persisting  physiological  changes. 

Incidentally,  the  sites  in  the  brain  where  we  have  gotten  these  most 
pronounced  and  persistent  changes  are  in  areas  which  show  on  pneu- 
moencephalograms.  Damage  at  these  sites  would  correspond  with 
the  findings  of  Campbell,  et  al.,  published  in  Lancet  in  1972.  Their 
studies  were  with  human  subjects  and  adolescents  who  were  smoking 
marihuana  for  a  very  long  period  of  time  who  showed  some  behav- 
ioral symptoms  and  had  enlarged  lateral  ventricles. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Heath.  Members  of  the  panel, 
I  have  a  vote  in  the  Senate  now  and  I  am  going  to  have  to  recess 
the  subcommittee  briefly  while  I  go  and  vote.  The  subcommittee  is 
recessed  at  the  call  of  the  Chair. 

T Short  recess.] 

Senator  Gurnet.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order.  First  of 
all,  I  want  to  apologize  to  the  panel  here.  We  have  a  very  contro- 
versial bill  on  the  Senate  floor,  the  issue  known  as  busing,  so  I  am 
going  to  be  back  and  forth  quite  a  bit  in  the  morning. 

Dr.  Heath,  I  am  going  to  ask  a  few  general  questions  and  then 
the  counsel  will  ask  more  questions  about  the  more  technical  aspects 
of  your  testimony.  First  of  all,  how  long  have  you  been  doing  re- 
search on  marihuana? 

Dr.  Heath.  About  4  years. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Is  it  your  conclusion,  Dr.  Heath,  from  the  re- 
search you  have  done  in  these  4  years  that  marihuana  is  a  dangerous 
drug? 

Dr.  Heath.  When  I  first  began  to  work  with  marihuana  I  was 
much  in  keeping  with  the  ideas  that  were  prevalent  in  the  scientific 
arena  at  that  time  that  marihuana  seemed  to  be  a  relatively  innocu- 
ous agent.  It  produced  relaxation  and  no  one  had  established  that  it 
produced  any  significant  damage,  nor  that  it  was  strictly  addictive. 
But  as  I  have  gone  on  with  the  experiments  observing  the  effects  in 
humans,  both  clinically  and  as  part  of  the  research  program,  I 
began  to  feel  that  this  is  a  very  harmful  drug.  This  drusr  seems  to 
produce  real  and  significant  damage,  and  my  data,  I  believe,  sub- 
stantiates the  fact  that  this  is  a  drug  which  has  strongly  deleterious 
effects  with  probable  destructive  effects  on  the  brain  in  heavy  users. 

I  think  most  of  my  colleagues,  at  least  the  ones  that  I  have  dailv 
contact  with  in  the  medical  school  and  particularly  those  who  are 
in  charge  of  the  psychiatric  or  mental  health  section  of  the  student 
health  clinic  at  Tulane,  have  become  more  and  more  concerned  with 
the  marihuana  problem,  as  students  using  it  are  showing  distinct, 
often  severe  and  lasting  effects. 

So.  in  summary,  as  time  has  gone  on,  and  I  have  become  per- 
sonally more  acquainted  with  and  interested  in  the  effects  of  mari- 
huana, both  clinically  and  experimentally,  I  have  come  to  feel  in- 
creasingly that  this  is  a  dangerous  drug. 


63 

Senator  Gurney.  You  mentioned  that  you  were  concerned  about 
the  use  of  marihuana  among  the  students  at  Tulane  University.  I, 
of  course,  don't  intend  to  single  out  Tulane — it  is  a  typical  American 
university  like  the  others  everywhere — but  would  you  say  that  mari- 
huana use  on  your  campus  is  fairly  widespread  among  the  students? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes,  we  have  done  surveys  from  time  to  time,  and  T 
think  they  are  fairly  accurate.  In  the  surveys  students  had  no  reason 
not  to  answer  the  questions  candidly  and  it  is  in  quite  wide  usage.  I'm 
sure  this  is  true  in  other  campuses  as  well. 

Senator  Gurney.  What  percentage  of  usage  among  the  students 
did  your  surveys  show  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  Well,  surveys  have  varied,  depending  what  your  cri- 
teria are.  In  other  words,  if  you  include  the  occasional  experimental 
user,  the  percentage  is  much  higher  than  if  you  only  consider 
those  that  use  it  very  frequently.  There  are  gradations — those  who 
smoke  daily,  those  who  use  it  several  times  a  week,  and  those  who 
smoke  on  the  weekends  to  those  who  have  experimented  only  once 
or  twice.  I  would  say,  considering  only  those  who  have  used  it  to  a 
significant  extent,  that  the  statistics  range  as  high  as  30  to  40  percent. 

Senator  Gurney.  What  do  you  call  a  fairly  consistent  usage — how 
many? 

Dr.  Heath.  Two  or  three  times  a  week. 

Senator  Gurney.  Now  this  is  a  marihuana  cigarette,  I  presume? 

Dr.  Heath.  Correct.  I  would  consider  two  to  three  marihuana 
cigarettes  per  week  and  doing  it  on  a  regular  basis  to  be  significant. 

Senator  Gurney.  And  it  is  your  opinion  from  the  result  of  your 
research  that  the  persistent  use  of  marihuana  two  or  three  times  a 
week  regularly  does  produce  permanent  brain  damage? 

Dr.  Heath.  It  would  seem  unlikely  that  marihuana  of  low  po- 
tency smoke  of  two  or  three  times  a  week  would  produce  brain 
damage.  We  were  using  considerably  higher  dosage  in  our  experi- 
ments. Moderate  smokers — moderate  being  based  on  hashish  con- 
sumption— corresponds  to  the  upper  levels  of  social  consumption 
that  would  amount  to  smoking  considerably  more  than  two  or  three 
marihuana  cigarettes  of  the  potency  level  prevalent  on  our  campus. 
The  dose  range  would  be  about  the  level  that  would  be  consumed  if 
a  person  were  smoking  three  average  marihuana  cigarettes  per  day. 
We  are  talking  about  dosage  on  a  per  kilogram  level  between  our 
monkeys  and  our  humans — not  total  dosage,  of  course.  In  the  future, 
if  the  funds  are  provided,  we  will  smoke  monkeys  at  a  lower  dose 
level  commensurate  with  the  amount  of  active  ingredient  that  is 
consumed  by  an  individual  smoking  three  to  five  cigarettes  per  week. 
This  would  mean  repeating  the  entire  study  at  this  dose  level  and 
would  involve  considerable  additional  expense — but  until  we  do  this 
I  will  not  be  able  to  answer  with  precision  the  question  you  raised. 

Senator  Gurney.  Would  you  care  to  offer  an  opinion  about  the 
persistent  use  of  marihuana  by  your  students,  if  that  would  produce 
brain  damage? 

Dr.  Heath.  We  have  numerous  instances  in  which  the  students 
using  marihuana  have  gotten  into  difficulty  one  way  or  another.  But 
there  are,  of  course,  many  variables  in  the  life  of  students  and  this 


64 

is  what  makes  clinical  data  in  some  instances  questionable.  But  as 
you  see  a  number  of  patients  where  smoking  marihuana  is  in  the 
foreground  of  the  clinical  picture,  you  do  begin  to  feel  that  this  is 
an  agent  which  has  harmful  effects,  and  one  which  reduces  the  effec- 
tive capability  of  many  students  in  both  their  personal  life  relation- 
ships and  their  academic  performances.  Speaking  as  a  clinician, 
without  being  able  to  back  it  with  precise  hard  data  such  as  we  have 
in  animals,  it  seems  probable  that  the  continued  use  of  marihuana  is 
reducing  the  potential  ceiling  level  of  functioning  of  a  number  of 
these  students,  both  emotionally  and  academically. 

Senator  Gurney.  You  mentioned  about  4  years  ago  when  you  be- 
gan this  study  you  felt  that  marihuana  was,  as  I  recall,  not  a  harm- 
ful drug,  a  rather  innocuous  drug.  But  you  have  changed  your 
opinion  on  that? 

Is  it  also  true  that  this  is  a  prevailing  opinion  among  a  wide- 
spread portion  of  our  population  today — that  marihuana  is  an  in- 
nocuous and  is  not  a  harmful  drug? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes.  I  see  the  point  you  are  making  and  I  think  it 
accurately  reflects  the  prevailing  attitude  amongst  younger  members 
of  our  society,  both  high  school  and  college  students.  If  you  speak 
with  them  they  quote  certain  authorities  and  opinions  from  members 
of  their  own  group  to  the  effect  that  this  drug  is  innocuous. 

Senator  Gurney.  Another  question  that  I  think  is  important. 
There  is  a  prevailing  opinion,  I  think,  certainly  among  the  users — 
the  young  people  and  the  adults  too,  so  far  as  that  is  concerned — 
that  marihuana  can  be  equated  to  alcohol  as  a  drug;  that  marihuana 
really  isn't  any  more  harmful  than  alcohol.  "Would  you  care  to  ex- 
press your  opinion  on  that? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes,  I  think  I  can  express  that  even  more  firmly  be- 
cause it  can  be  backed  with  hard  data  from  our  animal  studies.  If 
I  may,  I  would  just  like  to  state  that  the  probable  reason  so  many 
believe  that  marihuana  is  innocuous  is  because  there  really  has  not 
been  any  significant  amount  of  hard  data  collected  until  recently 
to  determine  whether  it  does  or  does  not  produce  damaging  effects 
on  the  human,  particularly  on  the  brain. 

I  think  our  data  are  some  of  the  first  real  objective  data  that 
have  shown  that  marihuana  does  produce  persistent  effects,  at  least 
in  brain  function.  Until  this  sort  of  data  had  been  collected  people 
were  going  on  hearsay.  I  think  it  is  important  to  separate  what  is 
soft  or  impressionistic  opinion  from  factual  data,  and  the  factual 
data  hasn't  all  come  in  yet.  The  investigators  you  have  gathered 
here  today  have  all  been  in  the  process  of  collecting  some  hard  data. 

Senator  Gurney.  Realizing  then  that  the  data  are  not  complete, 
because  we  do  want  to  be  careful  in  making  conclusions  and  state- 
ments, but  from  your  own  studies,  I  take  it,  your  opinion  is  that 
marihuana  is  a  far  more  dangerous  drug  than  alcohol  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  I  believe  that  is  correct.  We  have  used  alcohol  as  a 
control  in  our  studies,  both  with  human  patients  and  with  the  ani- 
mals. I  am  perplexed  as  to  why  this  analogy  was  made  between 
marihuana  and  alcohol  since  we  have  gathered  more  information, 


65 

except  that  on  a  social,  clinical  basis  both  produce  relaxation  and  a 
feeling  of  euphoria.  But  when  you  begin  to  study  brain  activity  in 
relationship  to  these  compounds  they  are  drastically  different.  Alco- 
hol does  not  produce  these  profound  specific  recording  changes  that 
I  have  been  showing  you  as  a  result  of  marihuana  and  the  active 
ingredient  delta-9  THC.  It  produces  some  diffuse,  rather  minor 
alterations,  that  you  would  expect  if  you  spontaneously  were  some- 
what more  relaxed. 

Alcohol  does  not  get  in  there  and  directly  and  profoundly  affect 
brain  function  as  the  cannabis  preparations  do.  They  have  a  strik- 
ingly different  physiological  effect  on  the  brain.  Of  course,  alcohol 
does  affect  the  liver  and  it  has  been  shown  objectively  with  many 
recent  experiments  that  it  ultimately  can  affect  the  brain,  but  you  can 
use  alcohol  for  a  long  period  of  time  without  producing  any  sort 
of  persistent  damage.  People  might  drink  rather  heavily  for  25  or 
30  years  and  never  get  into  serious  trouble  so  far  as  alterations  in 
their  brain  is  concerned.  But  with  marihuana,  as  the  facts  are  be- 
ginning to  accumulate,  it  seems  as  though  you  have  to  use  it  only 
for  a  relatively  short  time  in  moderate  to  heavy  use  before  persistent 
behavioral  effects  along  with  other  evidence  of  brain  damage  begin 
to  develop.  As  I  have  said,  these  animal  data  are  hard  data.  As  data 
accumulates  they  are  beginning  to  confirm  what  many  of  us  have 
suspected  from  clinical  experience  with  marihuana  users;  namely, 
that  this  produces  distinctive  and  irreversible  changes  in  the  brain. 

Senator  Gurnet.  One  final  question,  Dr.  Heath.  Do  you  think  that 
the  use  of  marihuana  should  be  legalized  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  You  know,  I  think  that  is  a  little  bit  out  of  my  ball 
park  and  into  yours. 

Senator  Gurnet.  All  right. 

Dr.  Heath.  I  think  it  is  my  job  to  collect  information  for  you  to 
use  in  making  that  decision. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  guess  so. 

Dr.  Heath.  And  I  would  rather  avoid  commenting  on  it. 

Senator  Gurnet.  You  have  a  good  point.  Counsel  will  have  ques- 
tions now  to  ask  you — Mr.  Martin. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  a  suggestion  to  make,  Mr.  Chairman.  So  that 
the  record  will  be  more  comprehensible  for  the  lay  reader,  I  would 
like  to  suggest  that  Dr.  Heath  provide  us,  if  it  isn't  too  much  trouble, 
with  a  diagram  showing  the  location  of  the  segments  of  the  brain 
about  which  he  has  been  talking  today,  and  a  brief  description  of 
the  major  functions  controlled  by  these  segments.  Would  that  be 
possible.  Dr.  Heath? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes,  that  could  be  produced. 

Senator  Gurnet.  The  diagram  will  be  included  as  a  part  of  the 
record. 


66 

[The  diagram  referred  to  follows :] 


SOMATIC   ANO 

VISCERAL 
AFFERENTS   \ 

Fig.  1.  Scliema  of  the  limbic  system.  OB — olfactory  bulb;  LOT — lateral  olfactory  striae;  INS— insula;  I'll— 
uncinate  bundle;  PIJ — diagonal  band  of  broca;  AM Y(I — amygdala;  SCH — subcallosal  radiations;  HYP  -liyuo- 
tlialamus;  AT — anterior  thalamus;  MH — mammillary  body;  MTT — maiumillothalamic  trace  (Vicq  D'Azyr's 
Tract);  ATlt — anterior  thalamic  radiations;  ST — stria  terminalis;  UAH  -halienula;  MKH  medial  forebrain 
bundle;  SM — stria  medullaris;  HPT — hal>enulointerpe<luncular  tract  (fasciculus  retroflexus  of  Meynert);  IP — 
interpeduncular  nucleus;  LMA — limbic  midbrain  area  of  nauta;  (i  -nucleus  of  (iuddeu;  ('(J — central  gray;  (*C— 
corpus  callosum. 


Mr.  Martin.  The  EEG  charts  that  you  have  shown  us,  Dr.  Heath — 
would  it  be  accurate  to  describe  them  as  a  quantitative  reading  of 
aberration  from  the  normal  in  the  brains  of  monkeys  and  humans 
who  have  been  exposed  to  marihuana?  Does  a  more  violent  aberra- 
tion of  the  brain  wave  pattern  from  the  normal  pattern  mean  that 
the  brain  has  been  more  severely  affected? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes,  in  general,  that  is  true.  In  regard  to  your  major 
question  about  quantitating,  yes,  they  can  to  some  extent  be  quanti- 
tated  and  we  have  been  quantitating  those. 

If  you  will  note  on  those  records  there  are  two  channels  labeled  the 
TCG,  time  code  generator.  We  can  put  this  physiological  data  on. 
tape,  and  then  we  can  put  it  into  the  computer  for  a  quantitative 
analysis  of  the  changes  that  have  occurred  in  terms  of  the  amplitude 


67 

changes  and  the  frequency  changes,  which  are  the  basic  important 
constituents  of  an  EEG  record. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  spoke  about  the  parallel  work  you  conducted 
with  alcohol  in  monkeys  and  humans,  Dr.  Heath.  Would  it  be  pos- 
sible to  provide  us  for  the  record  with  a  set  of  parallel  EEG  charts 
for  alcohol,  with  a  commentary  on  the  difference  between  the  mari- 
huana and  alcohol  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes.  As  a  matter  of  fact  I  have  published  articles  on 
that  comparison.  One  was  on  humans,  in  the  Archives  of  General 
Psychiatry,  I  believe,  in  the  early  summer  of  1972.  And  the  other 
was  on  monkeys  where  alcohol  was  used  as  a  control  substance,  and 
that  was  published  in  the  Journal  of  Neuropharmacology  in  1973 — 
I  will  send  you  reprints  of  both  if  that  is  satisfactory. 

Senator  Gurnet.  That  is,  and  these  will  be  included  in  the  record 
as  well. 

[The  documents  referred  to  may  be  found  in  the  appendix,  pp.  349, 
356.] 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  the  aberrations  from  the  normal  appear  to  be 
more  marked  in  any  one  segment  of  the  brain  than  in  other  segments, 
and,  if  this  is  the  case,  what  would  you  say  this  implies? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes.  The  sites  that  are  most  profoundly  affected  are 
the  septal  region,  hippocampus,  and  amygdala  and  this  is  where  the 
lasting  effects  have  been  occurring. 

The  septal  is  part  of  the  deep  rostral  forebrain,  the  front  part  of 
the  brain  in  depth  and,  as  I  indicated,  this  is  the  site  where  we  have 
been  able  to  localize  pleasure  responsiveness.  This  is  the  center  of 
our  physiological  system  for  pleasure.  Whenever  you  spontaneously 
feel  pleasure  this  side  fires  off,  and  if  you  stimulate  it,  intense  feel- 
ings of  pleasure  are  induced.  When  you  have  diseases  such  asschizo- 
phrenia  where  pleasure  is  impaired,  this  region  is  functioning  ab- 
normally. The  fact  that  this  drug,  marihuana,  initially  turns  it  on 
and  activates  it  like  an  electrical  stimulus,  is  the  reason  that  people 
use  the  drug.  That  is  the  fundamental  attraction  of  addictive  drugs — 
they  make  you  feel  good. 

Ultimately,  of  course,  since  they  are  squeezing  out  the  essential 
chemical  constituents  of  this  physiological  system,  it  becomes  ex- 
hausted; you  then  need  to  take  increasing  amounts  of  the  drug, 
until  the  system  is  completely  exhausted  and  the  drug  no  longer 
induces  an'  effect.  The  drugs'  aren't  putting  in  anything.  They're 
just  squeezing  out  what  you  have  there  already.  Ultimately,  the 
cells  become  depleted  and  can't  respond. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  mentioned  schizophrenia.  Is  it  accurate — I 
have  heard  this,  I  am  not  sure  that  it  is  so — that  you  have  a 
similarity  between  the  brain  wave  patterns  of  marihuana  smokers  and 
schizophrenics  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  In  some  of  them  that  is  correct.  In  particular,  in  these 
animals  that  have  been  chronically  exposed,  we  are  beginning  to  see 
changes  of  the  sort  we  see  in  the  psychotic  schizophrenic  patient. 
This  septal  region  recording  abnormality  is  seen  with  any  form  of 
psvchotic  behavior — schizophrenia  or  other  brain  pathologies  caus- 
ing psychosis.  For  example,  if  a  brain  tumor  grows  there  and  knocks 
out  these  cells  you  get  psychotic  too. 


68 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  the  motivational  factor — is  this  controlled  by  the 
hippocampus  or  what  segment? 

Dr.  Heath.  The  septal  region,  hippocampus  and  amygdala,  which 
are  integral  parts  and  richly  interconnected,  are  parts  of  this  moti- 
vational system.  But  the  septal  region  is  much  more  tied  in  with 
pleasure  and  thus  with  motivation.  We  do  things  because  we  get  a 
reward.  Thus,  motivation  is  tied  in  with  pleasure. 

Mr.  Martin.  The  aberration  from  the  normal  which  you  found  in 
the  segments  of  the  brain  associated  with  motivation — could  these 
aberrations  have  anything  to  do  with  the  so-called  amotivational 
syndrome  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes,  I  think  this  is  the  correlation.  This  is  the  pleas- 
ure system  and  if  its  function  becomes  impaired  then  you  lose  your 
motivation.  There  is  a  physiological  basis  for  motivation. 

Mr.  Martin.  One  final  question.  One  of  our  witnesses  last  Thurs- 
day was  Dr.  Harvey  Powelson  of  California,  Dr.  Powelson  served 
as  director  of  the  Psychiatric  Division  of  the  Student  Health  Service 
at  Berkeley  from  1964  to  1972,  and  he  saw  the  beginnings  of  the 
epidemic,  and  he  saw  it  burgeon,  and  then  he  saw  it  take  over  the 
campus.  And  he  changed  his  mind  as  a  result  of  this  exposure,  as 
a  result  of  the  exposure  to  hundreds — literally  hundreds — of  students 
who  had  gone  on  marihuana  and  hashish  and  had  suffered  irreparable 
damage  in  his  opinion,  as  a  result  of  this.  He  told  us  that  he  was 
convinced  of  the  existence  of  irreversible  brain  damage  and  that  it 
was  produced  in  a  relatively  short  time,  as  you  suggest  is  a  possibilitv. 

He  related  the  history  of  a  brilliant  student  of  mathematics  who 
had  abandoned  his  studies  when  he  embarked  on  a  heavy  cannabis 
binge  and  then  about  2  years  later  he  decided  to  pull  himself  to- 
gether and  come  back.  So  he  laid  off  for  a  long  time,  went  back  to 
school,  became  functional — but  he  just  couldn't  do  the  complex  math- 
ematical calculations  he  was  able  to  do  before,  even  a  year  later. 
Does  this  correspond  to  anything  in  your  experience? 

Dr.  Heath.  It  very  closely  parallels  my  own  experience  both  clin- 
ically and  in  my  research.  I  haven't  seen  the  numbers  of  patients 
who  are  marihuana  smokers  that  Dr.  Powelson  has.  He  was  in  a 
very  unusual  position.  We  have  a  much  smaller  student  body  and  I 
have  seen  some  of  the  students  personally.  But  our  experience  paral- 
lels his.  You  describe  another  very  interesting  phenomenon  which  I 
would  like  to  comment  on,  and  that  is  that  when  a  person  stops 
using  the  drug,  they  do  show  some  improvement.  They  do  not,  how- 
ever, get  back  to  their  baseline  level  of  functioning.  This  is  true  with 
any  insult  to  the  nervous  system;  whether  it  be  a  stroke,  a  trauma 
or  a  hit  on  the  head,  the  initial  effects  are  much  greater  that  the 
long-term  effects.  When  you  get  an  insult  to  the  nervous  system,  even 
though  the  immediate  effects  are  very  profound,  there  is  a  tendency 
for  it  to  clear  up  but  only  partially.  There  is  always  some  permanent 
residual  effects  which  hangs  on  and  I  think  this  is  what  Dr.  Powelson 
described.  Much  of  the  immediate  toxic  effects  clear  up  when  you 
stop  smoking  but  the  consequences  of  that  toxin  having  been  there 
for  a  long  time  may  permanently  damage  some  cells  which  then 
can't  recover. 


69 

Mr.  Martin.  That  concludes  the  questions  that  I  have  to  ask,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Do  you  have  any  questions,  Mr.  Sourwine  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  have  a  few  Mr.  Chairman.  I  will  try  to  be  brief. 
Sir,  you  have  in  a  number  of  ways  appeared  to  imply  that  the  re- 
sults received  or  discovered  in  experiments  with  monkeys  are  reli- 
able criteria  or  at  least  reliable  indicia  with  respect  to  what  can  be 
expected  under  similar  or  identical  circumstances  in  the  case  of  a 
man.  Is  this  true  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Oh,  in  part  of  your  discussion  you  referred  to 
either  8  or  18  percent  of  delta-9  THC  contained  in  smoked  mari- 
huana. Was  that  18  or  9  percent? 

Dr.  Heath.  When  we  smoked  the  monkeys  with  marihuana  we 
had  an  assay  of  the  percentage  of  THC  in  that  preparation,  and 
then,  on  a  per  weight  basis,  weighed  out  the  amount  of  marihuana 
for  that  particular  monkey  to  smoke.  That  was  based  on  what  heavy 
or  moderate  hashish  users  would  smoke.  When  we  were  trying  to 
relate  the  intravenous  delta-9  THC  to  the  ingestion  of  active  ingredi- 
ents through  the  marihuana  smoked,  we  at  first  thought  we  would  give 
the  total  amount  intravenously  that  the  monkey  was  getting  by 
smoking  it.  But  when  we  did  that  we  nearly  killed  the  monkey.  It 
has  been  known  that  smoking  is  not  the  most  efficient  way  for  get- 
ting the  active  ingredient.  We  adjusted  the  dosage  so  that  we  would 
get  a  good  effect  on  the  monkey  without  risking  its  life,  and  came 
out  with  a  total  dose  of  18  percent. 

In  other  words,  when  we  have  the  delta-9  THC,  we  could  only 
give  18  percent  of  the  delta-9  THC  contained  in  the  marihuana  they 
smoked. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  What  I  was  trying  to  get  at  is  this  question.  Does 
that  mean,  as  it  appears  to,  that  in  smoking  a  monkey  can  get  and 
does  get  roughly  five  times  as  much  of  the  delta-9  THC  as  it  would 
take  to  kill  him  if  he  got  all  that  at  once?  In  other  words,  is  a 
monkey  getting  a  lethal  dose  in  the  smoking? 

Dr.  Heath.  There  are  a  number  of  ways  of  interpreting  that  fact 
that  I  gave  you.  One  is  that  taking  it  into  the  lungs  is  not  the  most 
efficient  way  of  getting  the  active  materials  into  the  bloodstream.  A 
lot  of  it  is  lost  in  smoking — that  is  the  most  important  factor. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Thank  you,  sir.  You  told  us  that  for  controlled 
smoking  with  inactive  marihuana,  the  amount  of  starting  material 
was  equated  with  the  amount  of  marihuana  in  the  active  prepara- 
tions. Would  you  tell  us  for  the  record  what  was  this  equation? 

Dr.  Heath.  Right.  Here  is  the  way  that  is  done,  backing  up  again. 
With  the  marihuana  we  knew  how  much  delta-9  THC  was  in  it,  and 
we  knew  the  dose  per  kilogram  of  weight  we  were  going  to  give,  so 
knowing  the  strength  of  the  marihuana  we  would  then  weigh  out 
the  total  amount  of  the  crude  weed  which  contained  the  active  mate- 
rial and  thus  gave  the  dose  that  we  wanted. 

In  our  control,  where  we  were  using  inactive  marihuana  we  would 
just  weigh  out  the  same  amount  of  material  that  was  calculated  for 
the  monkeys  smoking  active  marihuana. 


70 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  But  that  was  deactivated? 

Dr.  Heath.  Deactivated. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  It  was  marihuana  with  its  teeth  pulled? 

Dr.  Heath.  That  is  correct — exactly. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  Now,  Professor,  I  believe  I  have  just  one  more 
question.  Did  your  protocol  permit  you  to  draw  conclusions  consti- 
tuting or  underlying  comparisons  between  the  deleterious  effects  of 
marihuana  and  the  deleterious  effects  of  just  the  smoke  without  the 
tetrahydrocannabinol  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  I  am  sorry,  sir.  I  didn't  follow  your  question. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  I  am  asking  whether  under  your  protocol  for  these 
experiments  you  were  in  a  position  to  draw  any  conclusions,  any 
comparisons,  between  the  damage  or  the  results  of  the  effects  of  the 
marihuana  smoking  as  compared  with  similar  or  somewhat  similar 
effects,  if  any,  involved  in  the  mere  smoking  of  tobacco  or  detox- 
ified  


Dr.  Heath.  Eight.  We  didn't  get 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  Detoxified  marihuana. 

Dr.  Heath.  We  got  neither  immediate  nor  lasting  effects  with  the 
detoxified  marihuana.  It  looks  like  the  effects  on  the  brain  are  due 
to  the  delta-9  THC,  possibly  along  with  other  specific  ingredients. 

We  have  used  tobacco  as  a  control  in  other  studies  we  reported, 
and  it  does  not  induce  these  changes  either.  So  the  conclusion  would 
be  that  neither  smoke,  per  se,  tobacco,  nor  inactive  marihuana  in- 
duces the  changes  with  which  we  are  concerned. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  The  last  part  of  the  question.  You  indicated  in 
your  statement  that  there  were  monkey  deaths  due  to  respiratory 
problems,  apparently  caused  by  the  smoking  of  the  monkeys.  Do  vou 
have  any  indication  whether  these  problems  were  caused  merely  by 
the  products  of  smoking,  aside  from  the  delta-9  THC  ? 

Dr.  Heath.  Yes.  I  think  I  will  have  to  speculate  but  there  is  an 
awful  lot  of  "junk"  in  marihuana  that  is  bound  to  be  extremely 
harsh  and  irritating.  Marihuana  is  much  more  harsh  and  irritating 
than  tobacco  and  produces  considerable  irritation  in  the  respiratory 
tract  of  these  animals.  We  feel  this  was  the  reason  the  two  animals 
developed  pneumonia  and  subsequently  died. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  I  have  no  further  questions. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Heath.  Let  me  thank  you  for 
your  most  important  and  constructive  testimony  from  your  research. 
The  subcommittee  is  grateful  to  you  for  being  here  this  morning. 
You  have  made  a  great  contribution  in  your  study  in  trying  to  find 
out  about  the  effects  of  marihuana. 

Our  next  witness  is  Professor  Paton. 

Would  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record,  Professor? 

TESTIMONY    OF    DR.    W.    D.    M.    PATON,    THE    PROFESSOR    OF 
PHARMACOLOGY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  OXFORD 

Dr.  Paton.  I  am  professor  of  pharmacology  in  the  University  of 
Oxford.  I  originally  trained  in  physiology  in  Oxford,  qualified  in 
1942  in  medicine,  did  a  residency,  and  then  pathology  for  a  year,  and 


71 

then  during  the  war  entered  the  service  of  the  Medical  Research 
Council  to  work  on  diving  and  submarine  problems.  My  own  interest 
in  cannabis  was  aroused  by  a  conference  on  adolescent  drug  de- 
pendence in  1966,  from  which  it  seemed  that  in  modern  terms  the 
sort  of  pharmacological  work  that  was  needed,  was  not  really  being 
initiated,  and  I  began  my  work  in  1969. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Just  one  or  two  other  questions,  Professor,  to 
pin  down  the  record.  You  were  trained  as  a  physiologist  in  Oxford, 
where  you  took  your  first  degree  in  1938? 

Dr.  Paton.  I  took  my  degree  in  1938  at  Oxford. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  then  after  being  a  clinical  student  at  Uni- 
versity Hospital  London,  your  degrees  of  bachelor  of  medicine  and 
bachelor  or  surgery  from  Oxford  were  in  1942? 

Dr.  Paton.  Correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  were  a  house  physician  at  the  Univer- 
sity College  Hospital,  London,  and  also  a  pathologist? 

Dr.  Paton.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  how  long  was  that? 

Dr.  Paton.  The  residency  was  6  months.  Then  I  did  a  year  in 
pathology  at  a  sanatorium. 

Senator  Gurnet.  You  are  the  author,  with  J.  P.  Payne,  of  "Phar- 
macological Principles  and  Practice",  which  is  one  of  the  standard 
textbooks  on  the  subject  in  the  English-speaking  world? 

Dr.  Paton.  It  was,  I  would  not  claim  it  is  now,  when  one  has 
failed  to  revise  it.  It  is  now  about  6  years  old. 

Senator  Gurnet.  You  are  chairman  of  the  Editorial  Board  of  the 
British  Pharmacological  Society; 

Dr.  Paton.  Yes,  that  is  right. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  are  you  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Drug  Dependence  of  the  British  Medical  Research  Council? 

Dr.  Paton.  I  am. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Could  you  just  briefly  tell  us  what  the  British 
Medical  Research  Council  is? 

Dr.  Paton.  Our  Medical  Research  Council  is  roughly  equivalent 
to  your  National  Institutes  of  Health. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  see. 

Dr.  Paton.  I  served  on  the  Council  for  4  years.  I  have  chaired  a 
number  of  its  committees  and  I  am  now  chairman  of  this  particular 
committee. 

Senator  Gurnet.  How  long  have  you  been  involved  in  the  study 
of  cannabis? 

Dr.  Paton.  I  started  thinking  and  reading  about  it  back  about 
1966.  My  own  work  on  it,  directlv  experimenting  with  it,  started  in 
1969. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Would  you  proceed  with  your  statement  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  Some  of  mv  earlier  work  has  been  relevant :  on  anes- 
thetics (dating  back  to  1944  in  connection  with  narcosis  in  diving 
and  submarine  escape),  and  on  opiates  (from  1949).  The  statement 
that  follows  rests  partly  on  this  work,  partly  on  my  own  informal 
contacts  with  drug  users,  and  partly  on  a  review  of  the  recent  re- 
search on  the  effects  in  animals  and  man  (written  together  with  Dr. 


72 

K.  G.  Pertwee  and  Dr.  Elisabeth  Tylden)  which  forms  three  chap- 
ters in  "Marihuana"  ed.  R.  Mechoulam,  Academic  Press,  recently 
published.  Of  this  work  (400-500  papers),  usually  only  a  small 
fraction  is  referred  to  in  official  reports  and  other  writings.  My 
bibliography  now  reaches  over  700  papers  which  have  material 
that  is  important  in  them.  I  will  try  to  bring  out  what  appear  to  me 
the  salient  points  of  all  this  work,  interpreted  from  my  pharma- 
cological experience,  and  taking  for  the  most  part  the  point  of  view 
of  preventive  medicine. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  cigarettes  and  alcohol  are  as  bad  as,  or 
worse  than  cannabis,  yet  they  are  "legal" — why  should  not  can- 
nabis be  too?  I  should  like  to  say  that  I  will  compare  these  later 
from  the  pharmacological  point  of  view  and  from  my  own  attitude 
in  this  field,  that  of  preventive  medicine.  But,  before  doing  this, 
I  think  one  must  review  the  actions  of  the  cannabis,  particularly 
because  very  little  publicity  indeed  has  hitherto  been  given  to  many 
of  these  actions. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Professor  Paton,  I  wonder  if  you  could  explain 
to  the  subcommittee  and  to  me  especially,  because  I  really  do  not 
know,  what  is  the  difference  between  the  term  cannabis  and  mari- 
huana and  hashish  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  Cannabis  is  a  botanical  term,  the  name  of  a  plant. 
There  has  been  a  considerable  variety  of  terms.  This  is  a  botanical 
term.  Marihuana  is  the  term  usually  given  to  the  plant  without 
any  special  treatment,  dried  for  use.  Hashish  is  a  name  where  the 
resin,  chiefly  in  the  flowering  heads,  is  in  some  way  or  other  par- 
tially purified.  You  can  do  this  in  various  ways,  if  you  simply 
press  a  whole  lot  of  the  flowering  tops  of  plants  together  the  resin 
aggregates;  and  according  to  how  far  you  push  this  you  get  a 
richer  and  richer  preparation.  I  think  it  is  worth  stressing  that  the 
dividing  line,  this  is  my  view,  between  marihuana  and  hashish 
is  not  a  very  good  one.  You  can  get  hashishes  which  have  decayed 
and  they  may  have  quite  a  loss  of  THC  content;  and  you  can  get 
marihuana  such  as  some  people  have  grown  in  England  from  seeds, 
and  just  the  leaves  contain  a  remarkable  amount  of  THC. 

I  shall  use  the  term  cannabis  rather  than  marihuana,  since  the 
use  of  the  latter  word  may  suggest  a  sharper  distinction  from  hash- 
ish than  in  fact  exists  (both  are  mixtures  of  cannabis  resin  with 
other  material  from  the  plant),  and  perhaps  also  begs  the  question 
whether  or  not  it  would  be  possible  to  legislate  differently  for  them. 
The  first  point  to  stress  is  that  cannabis  is  a  complex  mixture  of 
chemicals;  I  am  not  sure  of  the  latest  score,  but  there  are  certainly 
50  identifiable  substances  in  it.  At  least  six  of  these  are  known  to 
have  a  biological  action:  tetrahydrocannabinol  (THC),  propyl-THC, 
cannabidiol,  cannabinol,  and  a  group  of  water  soluble  materials 
giving  alkaloidal  reactions.  This  affects,  inter  alia,  the  suggestion 
that  one  might  permit  a  preparation  containing  up  to  1  or  2  per- 
cent THC  to  be  marketed :  this  would  only  be  feasible  if  THC  were 
the  only  active  principle.  It  also  means  that  pharmacological  or 
other  studies  which  are  limited  to  THC  have  only  a  restricted  rele- 
vance to  problems  of  human  usage  of  cannabis. 


73 


FAT-SOLUBILITY 


Second,  and  possibly  the  most  important  single  fact  about  can- 
nabis, apart  from  the*  fact  of  its  psychic  action,  is  that  THC,  the 
main  psychically  active  principle,  is  intensely  soluble  in  fat,  as  we 
pointed  out  in  1970.  It  has  an  octanol/water  partition  coefficient  of 
about  6,000  to  one,  over  10,000  times  that  of  alcohol.  Correspond- 
ing to  this  is  a  low  solubility  in  water.  Its  fat  solubility  is  greater 
than  that  of  industrial  solvents,  and  is  exceeded  only  by  substances 
like  DDT.  The  other  cannabinoids  share  these  properties.  This  solu- 
bility gives  it  an  affinity  for,  and  ability  to  traverse,  the  fatty  ma- 
terial in  cell-membranes. 

From  this  physical  property  follows:  (a)  the  activity  of  cannabis 
by  all  routes  of  administration;  (b)  its  cumulative  effect,  and  the 
persistence  of  effect  when  drug  is  withdrawn  it  tends  to  persist 
in  the  body  because  it  is  sitting  in  the  fatty  areas  which  cannot  be 
washed  out  by  the  watery  system  of  the  body.  (We  take  water  in 
at  one  end  and  lose  it  at  the  other— rinsing  the  body  all  the  time — 
to  put  it  colloquially.)  ;  (c)  its  passage  into  all  parts  of  the  body, 
including  brain,  adrenal  gland,  ovary,  testis,  and  foetus;  (d)  the 
diffuseness  of  its  effects  because  it  is  able  to  reach  every  cell  in  the 
body;  (e)  the  overlap  in  its  effects  with  those  of  one  important 
group  of  fat-soluble  materials,  the  general  anesthetics  such  as 
chloroform. 

Perhaps  I  should  say  a  special  word  about  the  brain,  where  per- 
haps the  most  important  fatty  material  in  our  bodies  is  located, 
though  in  much  smaller  percentage  than  (say)  in  adipose  tissue. 
Here,  too,  cumulation  of  THC  and  its  first  two  metabolites  has  been 
found. 

TOXICITY 

(a)  Fat  affinity  and  cumulation  in  the  body  in  themselves  are  not 
necessarily  harmful,  even  if  cumulation  is  undesirable  in  principle. 
The  fundamental  test  is  a  biological  one,  whether  toxicity  is  cumula- 
tive. This  has  been  found  to  be  the  case;  for  a  mouse,  it  requires 
one-tenth  as  much  cannabis  to  kill  if  given  in  repeated  daily  doses 
as  if  given  in  a  single  dose.  Similar  cumulative  toxicity  has  been 
found  for  THC  and  in  other  animals  and  by  more  delicate  methods 
than  lethality.  Inferences  must  not  be  drawn,  therefore,  from  re- 
sponses to  single  exposures  to  the  likely  effect  of  repeated  doses. 

(b)  "We  have  found  that  toxicity,  as  judged  by  loss  of  weight  and 
lethality,  is  associated  with  the  fat-soluble  fraction  of  cannabis; 
THC  appears  to  be  the  main,  but  not  the  only,  substance  responsible. 
It  appears  impracticable,  therefore,  to  dissociate  the  psychic  and 
the  toxic  effects. 

(c)  The  question  of  lethality  in  man  is  important.  It  is  often  said 
there  have  been  none.  Since  few  practitioners  would  know  how  to 
diagnose  a  death  caused,  or  contributed  to,  by  cannabis,  and  since 
it  could  not  at  present  be  proved  by  forensic  analysis,  only  scanty 
information  can  be  expected  in  any  case.  The  case  reported  by 
Heyndrickx  et  al.,1  in  the  light  of  this,  is  rather  convincing. 


1Heyndrlckx,  A.,  Scheirls,  C,  and  Schepens,  P.   (1969),  J.  Pharm.  Belg.  24.  371. 


74 

Possibly  more  important  is  to  point  to  three  ways  in  which  can- 
nabis could  indeed  cause  or  facilitate  death  although  proof  in  a 
particular  case  would  be  difficult,  (a)  It  produces  a  considerable 
tachycardia,2  and  this  may  be  associated  with  electrocardiographic 
changes  and  ventricular  extrasystoles.3  It  is  not  at  all  impossible 
that  this,  in  unfavorable  circumstances  in  a  chronic  user,  could 
progress  to  ventricular  fibrillation  4  and  death,  (b)  It  causes  a  dila- 
tation of  peripheral  blood  vessels,  corresponding  to  the  hypotensive 
action  in  animals.  This  probably  underlies  the  "fainting  attacks" 
reported  in  the  literature  as  well  as  by  my  own  contacts.  This  in- 
volves "postural  hypotension,"  in  which  the  capacity  of  the  body  to 
correct  for  the  upright  position  fails,  and  the  blood  drains  from 
the  brain.  As  with  other  hypotensive  drugs,  if  the  subject  could  not 
become  horizontal  either  deliberately  or  by  falling— for  example, 
because  he  was  in  a  chair — blood  supply  to  the  brain  might  fail, 
(c)  Cannabis,  chiefly  because  of  its  cannabidiol  content,  can  poten- 
tiate and  prolong  the  action  of  barbiturates — as  well  as  other  drugs 
used  in  medical  treatment.  This  could  mean  that  a  nonlethal  dose  of. 
barbiturate  became  lethal. 

Regardless  of  decisions  about  the  law,  one  wishes  that  all  can- 
nabis users  were  aware  of  these  possibilities. 

TERATOGENICITY 

Administration  of  cannabis  during  the  vulnerable  period  of 
pregnancy  has  been  found  to  cause  fetal  death  and  fetal  abnormal- 
ity in  three  species  of  animals.  The  deformity  includes  lack  of  limbs — 
reduction-deformity.  The  factor  responsible  has  not  been  identified 
but  does  not  appear  to  be  THC  although  new  work  is  showing  that 
THC  kills  a  majority  of  fetuses  and  in  the  remainder  produces  an 
increased  incidence  of  stillbirth  and  stunting.  The  effect  is  dose 
related,  an  important  thing  to  establish  if  cause  and  effect  are 
considered. 

These  results  are  sometimes  dismissed  on  the  grounds  that  any 
drug  in  sufficient  dose  will  be  teratogenic.  While  this  is  not  quite 
accurate,  there  is  evidence  that  serious  disturbance  of  the  mother 
can  have  such  an  effect.  This  gives  an  added  importance  to  the  cri- 
terion suggested  by  Robson  and  Sullivan  which  I  would  adopt; 
that  a  result  should  be  taken  as  significant  when  the  teratogenic  dose 
is  a  small  fraction  of  the  dose  lethal  to  the  mother.  This  is  the 
case  with  cannabis,  and  is  in  contrast  to  other  drugs,  including 
nicotine  and  aspirin. 

A  very  important  question  is  whether  cannabis  directly  affects 
the  genetic  material,  that  is,  nucleic  acid.  Early  reports  of  inter- 
ference with  cell  division  indicated  this.  These  have  been  confirmed. 
Dr.  Nahas'  and  Dr.  Morishima's  reports  here  have  clinched  the  issue. 
One  must  notice  that  general  anesthetics  as  a  class  can  also  produce 
fetal  abnormality.  A  provisional  hypothesis  for  teratogenicity,  there- 
fore is  that  this  action  of  cannabis  reflects  its  fat  solubility  and  re- 


2  Acceleration  of  the  heart  rate. 

3  Extra  beats  of  the  heart  originating  not,  as  normally,  in  the  auricles,   but  In  the 
ventricles  themselves. 

*  A  condition  where  the  ventricular  contraction   becomes   uncoordinated,   and  cardiac 
output  falls. 


75 

lation  to  anesthetics,  and  constitutes  a  sort  of  anesthesia,  for  in- 
stance, of  limb  buds  developing  in  the  fetus  at  critical  periods— 
hence  the  reduction-deformity.  It  must  be  stressed  that  all  I  have 
said  refers  simply  to  the  development  of  the  fetus.  There  is  also 
the  question  whether  the  genetic  material,  perhaps  as  a  result  of  in- 
terference with  cell  division  is  altered — giving  life  to  heritable 
defect. 

CARCINOGENICITY  AND  LUNG  PATHOLOGY 

Like  the  tar  from  cigarettes,  reefer  tar  is  carcinogenic  when  painted 
on  mouse  skin.  Cannabis  smoke  produces  changes  in  cultures  of  lung- 
tissue,  and  Dr.  Leuchtenberger  will  be  mentioning  this,  including 
loss  of  contact-inhibition  between  cells.  THC  in  low  concentration 
resembles  the  carcinogen  methyl-chlolanthrene  in  generating  malig- 
nancy in  rat  embryo  cells  incubated  with  a  murine  leucemia  virus, 
but  is  slower  in  action.  The  irritant  effect  of  the  smoke  on  the  respi- 
ratory tract  is  well  known  to  users  and  is  associated  with  bronchial 
pathology. 

These  effects  are  becoming  very  important.  Originally,  one  was 
uncertain  about  their  significance,  and  about  what  the  balance  would 
be  between  the  facts  that  more  cigarettes  than  reefers  will  normally 
be  smoked  in  any  one  day,  whereas  inhalation  and  retention  of  the 
smoke  is  much  deeper  and  more  efficient  with  the  reefer. 

Senator  Gurney.  Would  you  describe  what  a  reefer  is  to  the  com- 
mittee ? 

Dr.  Paton.  A  reefer  is  a  marihuana  cigarette  prepared  in  dif- 
ferent ways  in  different  parts  of  the  world. 

But  now  lung  damage,  in  the  form  of  emphysema,  is  being  re- 
peatedly recorded  and  I  was  very  interested  to  hear,  in  Dr.  Heath's 
presentation  today,  of  the  respiratory  condition  of  his  monkeys. 
Emphysema  is  normally  a  disease  of  much  later  life;  but  now  the 
quite  unexpected — to  me,  at  least — prospect  of  a  new  crop  of  respi- 
ratory cripples  early  in  life,  is  opening  up.  Originally,  I  thought 
the  cancer  risk  was  the  main  problem ;  cannabis  has  never  been  used 
extensively  in  a  society  with  an  expectation  of  life  long  enough  to 
show  a  carcinogenic  effect  in  man,  until  recent  years.  In  effect,  a 
new  experiment  in  cancer  epidemiology  started  5  to  10  years  ago. 
To  this  I  would  now  add  respiratory  pathology  generally;  and  be- 
cause it  shows  itself  early,  just  as  with  cigarette  smoking  bron- 
chitis is  an  early  warning  of  that  pathology,  I  believe  that  medical 
epidemiological  studies  of  pulmonary  pathology  of  cannabis  are  on 
a  wide  scale,  are  now  urgent  for  getting  an  early  warning  of  a 
carcinogenic  situation. 

CELLULAR    EFFECTS    OF    CANNABIS    AND    THC 

Numerous  such  effects  have  now  been  described,  which  we  can 
often  class  as  cell  pathology,  including  actions  on  microsomes,1  on 
mitochondria,2  on  neurones,  fibroblasts,  white  blood  cells,  and  on 
dividing  cells,  affecting  metabolism,  energy  utilization,  synthesis  of 

1  Structures  inside  the  cell,  particularly  liver  cells,  responsible  inter  alia  for  detoxl- 
catlon. 

2  Structures  Inside  cells  responsible  for  energy  production. 


76 

cellular  constituents,  and  immunological  responses.  To  this  we  must 
add  the  recent  observation  that  chronic  administration  of  THC  to 
young  rats  leads  to  a  reduction  in  brain  and  heart  weight.  Such 
effects  are  to  be  expected,  rather  than  a  matter  of  surprise,  from  a 
drug  with  a  high  affinity  for  lipid  in  a  cell  membrane.  It  should  be 
noted  that  the  local  concentrations  of  THC  or  its  metabolite  in  the 
cell  membranes  will  be  far  higher  than  those  in  the  blood ;  theoreti- 
cally, one  would  expect  a  concentration  factor  of  several  hundred; 
experimentally,  concentrations  of  600-fold  with  brain  and  380  with 
red  cell  membranes. 

An  important  aspect  of  these  effects  is  what  they  imply  for  matura- 
tion of  an  individual;  we  are  concerned  not  only  with  the  effect  of 
a  drug  on  a  mature  adult,  but  also  what  it  does  to  schoolchildren 
down  to  the  ages  of  11  and  12,  still  developing  in  many  ways.  The 
interference  by  cannabis  with  both  cell  metabolism  and  cell  divi- 
sion is  very  worrying. 

Mr.  Sourwtne.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  T  ask  one  question  ?  Am  I  cor- 
rect in  understanding  the  gist  of  what  you  are  saying  is  this:  that 
widespread  use  of  marihuana  is  likely  to  produce  in  our  children  a 
generation  of  little  old  people? 

Dr.  Paton.  I  think  that  is  a  little  further  than  that  in  what  I  am 
saying,  but  it  is  a  very  accurate  description.  It  is  only  an  opinion 
but  it  is  a  very  accurate  expression  of  it, 

Mr.  Sourwtne.  And  no  one  could  predict  what  the  third  genera- 
tion would  be  in  that  case,  could  they  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  No. 

THE  RELEVANCE  OF  ANIMAL  WORK 

It  may  be  argued  that  actions  in  animals  are  of  little  relevance  to 
man.  However,  the  pharmaceutical  industry,  and  the  bodies  which 
supervise  it,  do  not  operate  on  this  pre-Darwinian  principle.  Diffi- 
culties chiefly  arise  when  an  inordinately  high  safety  factor  has 
been  stipulated.  But  there  is  also  misunderstanding  over  rates  of 
dosage.  It  is  to  be  expected  that  small  animals  will  require  propor- 
tionately larger  doses — per  unit  body  weight — than  man,  just  as 
they  need  proportionately  more  food,  because  of  their  faster  meta- 
bolic rate.  One  can  estimate  a  mouse  dose  on  this  basis  as  10  times 
that  of  man;  taking  this  together  with  the  rates  of  human  use  re- 
ported in  WHO  Special  Keport  No.  478 — up  to  or  exceeding  10 
milligrams  per  kilogram  THC  per  day — it  appears  that  almost  all 
the  experimental  work  reported  in  animals  is  relevant  to  man.  The 
conclusion  is  reinforced  by  the  NIMH-sponsored  toxicity  studies  on 
monkeys.  A  daily  dose  of  50  milligrams  per  kilogram  orally  of  THC 
killed  one  of  six  monkeys;  damage  to  the  pancreas,  ulcerative  colitis, 
and  myeloid  hyperplasia  were  noted.  This  result,  at  doses  which 
proved  partially  lethal  at  only  10  times  some  rates  of  human  con- 
sumption, makes  no  allowance  for  contribution  by  other  toxic  ma- 
terials in  cannabis. 

TOLERANCE 

I  mentioned  high  rates  of  human  use.  People  have  expressed  in- 
credulty  at  this,  yet  it  is  well  established.  I  would  like  to  deposit  an 
article  on  consumption  in  a  group  of  English  students. 


77 

Senator  Gurnet.  The  article  will  be  received  in  the  record  and 
made  a  part  of  the  record  if  it  is  available. 

[The  article  referred  to  may  be  found  in  the  appendix,  p.  393.] 
Dr.  Paton.  This  is  perhaps  the  best  evidence  yet,  since  the  com- 
position of  the  actual  reefers  being  used  was  measured ;  uses  ranged 
up  to  199  milligrams  THC  per  day.  around  20  times  the  ordinary 
dose  for  a  high.  By  itself  it  shows  the  degree  of  tolerance  that  is 
achieved,  with  the  resulting  need  to  take  high  doses  for  an  effect,  By 
the  same  token,  toxicity  and  accumulation  at  these  levels  must  be 
considered. 

DIFFICULTIES  IN  THE  EXTENSION  OF  ANALYTIC  WORK  TO  MAN 

Although  there  are  a  number  of  human  studies  on  the  effects  of 
single  small  doses,  there  is  still  no  systematic  modern  study  of  the 
bodily  effects  of  continued  cannabis  administration.  One  reason  is 
that  while  limited  dosage  is  acceptable  for  volunteers,  dosage  over 
a  prolonged  period  at  the  higher  rates  of  use  at  least  in  my  view, 
is  not.  It  would  be  possible  to  study  users  themselves,  if  a  method 
of  urine  and  blood  analysis  existed  capable  of  verifying  their  actual 
consumption. 

If  I  could  interpose  here,  near  Oxford  people  have  bought  horse 
manure  and  smoked  it  as  cannabis.  There  are  other  similar  examples 
that  are  known  by  people  familiar  with  the  field. 

Senator  Gurnet.  That's  a  pretty  dirty  trick. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr.  Paton.  Biochemical  verification,  however,  is  at  present  not 
practicable;  as  a  result  only  the  subject's  testimony  as  to  his  rate  of 
consumption  of  a  substance  of  unknown  composition  is  available, 
and  this  is  hardly  sufficient.  Once  methods  of  analysis  of  body  fluids 
are  adequate,  the  position  should  improve  considerably. 

PSTCHOLOGICAL  EFFECTS  IN  MAN 

It  is  nevertheless  possible  and  useful  to  construct  a  rough  com- 
posite picture  of  all  of  the  psychological  effects  in  man,  if  one 
brings  together  a  number  of  things. 

(a)  The  neurophysiological  observations,  in  man  and  animals,  of 
the  kind  which  Dr.  Heath  has  already  discussed,  of  hypersynchron- 
ous  discharges  from  the  deeper  parts  of  the  brain — not  the  cortex — 
as  a  result  of  giving  cannabis  or  THC.  These  discharges  have  been 
termed  "epileptiform." 

(b)  The  observation  by  Campbell  and  his  colleagues  of  an  ap- 
parent loss  of  brain  substance  in  the  deeper  regions,  in  a  group  of 
young  chronic  cannabis  users.  This  needs  further  exploration,  and 
it  is  likely  that  it  is  now  possible  with  new  noninvasive  radio- 
graphic techniques. 

Senator  Gurnet.  What  do  you  mean.  Professor,  by  loss  of  brain 
substance? 

Dr.  Paton.  Dr.  Campbell's  paper  [see  appendix,  p.  383]  has  been 
deposited  in  an  earlier  hearing,  and  what  he  observed  was,  if  you 
inject  air  into  the  spinal  cord  and  you  adjust  the  position  of  the 
patients  head,  you  can  get  it  to  track  into  the  inner  fluid-filled  cham- 


78 

bers  of  the  brain  called  the  ventricles.  He  then  x-rayed  them  and 
in  short,  found  in  a  series  of  10  the  ventricles  were  significantly 
larger  than  in  a  series  of  13  best  controls  that  he  could  obtain.  Be- 
cause the  skull  is  a  rigid  box,  if  there  is  a  larger  empty  space  inside 
it  the  total  substance  of  the  brain  must  be  correspondingly  reduced. 
It  was  on  that  type  of  observation  that  he  thought  there  must  be  a 
reduction  in  the  mass  of  the  brain,  and  it  pointed  also  to  the  locali- 
zation where  that  reduction  was  taking  place.  There  was  a  very  in- 
teresting change  of  shape  of  ventricles  that  became  rounded;  and 
that  suggests  the  loss  of  substance  was  in  fact  in  adjacent  regions  to 
the  ventricles — a  point  which  Dr.  Heath  has  already  taken  up  at 
this  meeting. 

(c)  The  cumulative  property  of  THC,  and  its  affinity  for  fat  and 
hence  for  cell  membranes. 

(d)  The  numerous  psychiatric  reports  of  gradual  psychological 
change,  which  becomes  less  and  less  readily  reversible,  the  longer 
the  cannabis  exposure.  [This  was  first  pointed  out  by  Dr.  Brom- 
berg 1  in  this  country  in  1939,  although  delayed  recovery  may  well  have 
been  known  in  the  Moslem  community  in  medieval  times;  see 
Schwarz,  J.  Amer.  Med.  Assn.  223,  p.*  195.  1973.]  This  suggests 
something  permanent  or  semipermanent. 

(e)  The  fact  that  most  of  the  elements  of  this  psychological 
change — paranoid  feelings,  change  in  mood,  cognitive  impairment, 
loss  of  memory,  loss  of  concentration,  amotivational  state,  introspec- 
tive preoccupation  with  internal  imagery,  hallucination — can  be  re- 
versibly  produced  by  single  doses  of  THC  or  cannabis  in  normal 
volunteers. 

(f)  The  ability  of  cannabis  to  affect  cellular  metabolism  and  cell 
division. 

These  findings  converge  to  a  remarkable  extent  in  supporting  a 
prima  facie  view  that  repeated  cannabis  use  acts  on  the  deeper  parts 
of  the  brain — where  sensory  information  is  processed  and  mood  con- 
trolled; that  this  is  at  first  reversible,  but  becomes  more  persistent 
as  cumulation  occurs,  and  that  later  irreversible  changes  occur  with 
loss  of  brain  substance,  due  either  to  interference  with  the  capacity 
of  brain  cells  to  synthesize  their  requirements  or  to  interference  with 
cell  division. 

It  is  quite  likely  that  all  this  would  be  accepted  and  acted  upon, 
by  the  cannabis  user,  were  it  not  for  the  visual  imagery,  and — 
here  cannabis  is  very  like  nitrous  oxide — the  euphoria  and  the  con- 
viction of  insight  and  cosmic  significance. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Nitrous  oxide  is  laughing  gas  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  Laughing  gas. 

COMPARISON  WITH  ALCOHOL  AND  TOBACCO 

One  may  summarize  this  as  follows:  (1)  Alcohol  is  taken,  often 
diluted  with  food,  and  often  for  taste  or  to  quench  thirst  rather  than 
for  psychic  effect;  it  is  eliminated  in  a  few  hours,  there  is  little  or 
no  evidence  for  carcinogenicity  or  teratogenicity  particularly  if 
nutritional  defect  and  correlation  with  smoking  are  allowed  for; 

iBromberg,  W.   (1939).  J.  Amer.  Med.  Assn.  113,  4. 


79 

psychotic  phenomena  only  occur  after  heavy  and  prolonged  dosage : 
it  occurs  naturally  in  the  body  of  animals,  and  probably  also  in 
man;  it  has  valid  medical  uses  for  nutrition  and  as  a  vasodilator; 
it  escalates  only  to  itself;  the  price  paid  for  overuse  is  paid  in 
later  life. 

(2)  Tobacco  is  taken  partly  for  relaxation,  partly  to  assist  work, 
and  there  is  some  evidence  of  an  improvement  in  mental  function; 
the  nicotine  in  it  is  rapidly  metabolized  and  noncumulative ;  the  evi- 
dence suggests  that  it  is  the  tar  that  is  carcinogenic,  and  the  risk 
can  be  reduced  if  inhalation  is  avoided,  nicotine  being  absorbed 
through  the  mouth;  it  is  not  teratogenic;  no  psychotic  phenomena 
occur;  it  is  not  a  natural  constituent;  it  has  no  medical  use;  it  does 
not  escalate;  the  price  paid  for  overuse  is  paid  in  later  life — reduc- 
ing life  expectancy  from  about  75  years  to  70  years. 

(3)  Cannabis  is  taken  specifically,  and  usually  by  itself— some- 
times with  other  drugs — for  its  psychic  action ;  it  is  cumulative  and 
persistent;  its  tar  is  carcinogenic  and  failure  to  inhale  reduces  its 
effect  considerably;  experimentally  it  is  teratogenic;  psychotic  phe- 
nomena may  occur  with  a  single  dose;  it  is  not  a  natural  constitu- 
ent; prolonged  trial  in  medicine  from  the  1840's  led  to  its  abandon- 
ment from  pharmacopeias;  it  can  predispose  to  the  use  of  other 
drugs;  the  price  for  its  overuse  is  paid  in  adolescence  or  in  early 
life. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  am  going  to  have  to  interrupt  here,  Professor 
Paton.  I  have  another  vote  and  that  means  I  have  just  enough  time  to 
get  there,  so  I  will  recess  this  until  later. 

[A  recess  was  taken.] 

[Whereupon,  at  12 :45  p.m.,  the  hearing  was  recessed,  to  reconvene 
at  2  p.m.,  this  same  day.] 

Afternoon  Session 

Senator  Gurnet.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order.  We  will 
begin  by  finishing  the  statement  of  Professor  Paton. 

STATEMENT  OF  DR.  W.  D.  M.  PATON,  PROFESSOR  OF  PHARMA- 
COLOGY, UNIVERSITY  OF  OXFORD— Resumed 

Dr.  Paton.  I  would  like  to  summarize  the  last  point  I  was  making 
by  saying  it  seems  to  mc  that  cannabis  shares  the  disadvantages  of 
alcohol  and  tobacco,  together  with  its  own  psychotogenic  and  bio- 
chemical actions,  its  chronic  effects  being  accentuated  by  its  cumula- 
tive tendency,  giving  it  much  earlier  adverse  action. 

THE  QUESTION  OF  LEGALIZATION 

I  should  like  to  turn  now  to  the  question  of  legalization,  about 
which,  of  course,  I  speak  only  as  an  individual. 

(a)  Viewing  cannabis  as  if  it  were  a  new  pharmaceutical  prod- 
uct, I  could  not  agree  to  approval  being  given  to  the  introduction, 
for  general  and  repeated  consumption,  of  a  substance  shown  experi- 
mentally to  be  carcinogenic,  teratogenic,  and  cumulative,  and  able 
to  interfere  with  a  variety  of  cellular  processes,  until  it  had  been 


80 

shown,   quite   unequivocally,   that,   for  some   reason,  humans  were 
exempt  from  the  actions  concerned. 

(b)  There  is  no  rational  dividing  line  between  cannabis  and 
other  drugs  such  as  LSD  or  some  opiates.  A  high  dose  of  cannabis 
overlaps  with  a  low  dose  of  LSD,  in  its  hallucinatory  and  psycho- 
tomimetic action,  and  with  the  less  active  opiates,  in  respect  of 
analgesia,  euphoria,  and  "day-dreaming"  state.  In  fact,  since  can- 
nabis is  unique  among  these  drugs  for  its  cumulative  action,  I 
would  put  it  lower  in  the  list  for  legalization  than  some  others.  One 
needs  to  ask,  what  other  drugs  can  produce  prolonged  cognitive 
impairment  in  a  young  person? 

(c)  In  a  similar  way,  it  does  not  seem  feasible  to  me  to  propose 
legalization  of  cannabis  of  limited  potency.  There  is  in  fact  an 
analogy  with  alcohol  here:  we  have  marihuana,  1-2  percent  THC, 
and  weak  beers,  2  percent  alcohol;  hashish,  say  8  percent  THC, 
wines,  8-15  percent  alcohol;  and  so  to  speak,  "hard  hashish,"  that 
is  hashish  oil,  on  the  illicit  market — up  to  30-40  percent  THC,  hard 
liquor,  30-50  percent  alcohol.  To  suggest  one  could  legislate  for  1  or 
2  percent  THC  is  like  suggesting  one  could  legislate  for  weak  beer. 
It  would  remove  none  of  the  present  objections  to  cannabis  legis- 
lation, while  yet  allowing  the  drug  to  be  used. 

(d)  The  significance  of  progression  from  cannabis  to  other  drugs 
has  been  much  discussed,  and  my  own  1968  paper  severely,  but 
fallaciously,  criticized.  The  fallacy  was  exposed,  inter  alia,  by  R.  C. 
Pillard  in  "the  New  England  Journal  of  Medicine  (197)  255, '416-7). 
The  final  report  of  the  Le  Dain  Commission  concluded  as  regards 
LSD  that  "the  use  of  cannabis  definitely  facilitates  the  use  of  LSD 
or  predisposes  a  certain  number  of  individuals  to  experiment  with 
it."  The  arguments  they  give,  including  the  relationship  between  the 
nature  of  the  two  drusrs  and  the  findings  that  over  95  percent  of 
those  who  had  used  LSD  had  used  cannabis,  were  the  same  as  those 
I  had  advanced  in  respect  of  heroin  and  cannabis.  My  argument 
also  cited  the  remarkable  temporal  coincidence  between  cannabis 
convictions  and  heroin  addiction  in  the  United  Kingdom;  evidence 
of  this  sort  has  not  been  provided  in  respect  of  LSD. 

Today,  with  the  further  evolution  of  drug  use,  it  seems  clear  that 
depending  on  availability  of  drug,  various  patterns  of  progression 
are  possible,  in  which  one  would  include  cannabis  to  opiates,  can- 
nabis to  LSD,  and  cannabis  low  potency  to  cannabis  high  potency. 
Simple  reasons  can  now  be  seen;  that  cannabis  increases  suggesti- 
bility— this  was  referred  to  in  the  Wooten  Report  in  Britain,  in 
1968 — impairs  memory,  that  is,  your  capacity  to  remember  the 
criteria  by  which  you  judge  your  actions;  and  that  it  overlaps  in 
pharmacological  actions  with  opiates — euphoria,  analgesia,  day- 
dreaming state,  and  with  LSD — visual  imagery.  It  is  therefore  well- 
suited  to  providing  a  halfway  house,  converting  one  major  step 
directly  to  use  of  opiates,  LSD,  or  hashish,  into  two  smaller  and 
more  easily  accepted  steps. 

The  growth  of  polydrug  use  may  now  have  made  it  impossible  to 
define  patterns  of  progression  accurately.  But  I  would  still  hazard 
the  opinion  that  no  program  to  get  rid  of  opiate  addiction  or  LSD 
use  will  really  succeed  until  cannabis  use  declines.  Cannabis  can 
serve  as  well  to  cause  relapse,  as  to  initiate  drug  use. 


81 

(e)  The  last  point  in  weighing  up  the  virtues  and  disadvantages 
of  legalization,  of  which  I  am  merely  putting  one  side,  of  course, 
concerns  the  age  of  those  involved.  If  someone  dies  of  alcoholism 
or  lung  cancer  at  the  age  of  50  onwards,  that  is  a  loss;  but  the  in- 
dividual has  had  30  years  of  adult  life,  and  the  chance  to  make 
his  own  contribution.  But  the  adolescent,  dead  or  socially  inacti- 
vated by  20  years  old,  has  never  even  had  a  start  on  mature  life; 
the  loss,  both* for  him  or  her,  and  for  society,  is  incalculably  greater. 

Senator  Gurnet.  What  do  you  mean.  Professor,  by  socially  inacti- 
vated ? 

Dr.  Paton.  It  means  that  he  is  brought  to  a  state  where  he  can- 
not make  the  ordinary  contribution  one  expects.  That  the  Jobs  he 
does,  the  building  up  of  family,  the  role  he  plays  in  society  are 
just  so  much  less  than  his  potential. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Caused  by  the  excessive  use  of  marihuana  or 
cannabis  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  Yes.  One  is  referring  to  so  many  pictures.  With  a 
drug  addict,  that  is  a  complete  pattern.  But  I  do  not  believe  it  is 
necessary  to  postulate  full  development  of  classical  drug  addiction; 
some  of  the  boys  that  I  see  who  have  had  a  university  training  and 
now  are  doing  trivial  jobs,  if  they  go  on  like  that  for  5  years  at  a 
vital  period  in  their  life,  I  think  that  is  going  to  mean  a  measure 
of  social  inactivation. 

THE  DIFFICULTY  OF  FRAMING  A  POLICT 

My  own  opinion  is  that  it  would  be  disastrous  to  make  it  legal 
even  to  possess  cannabis.  If  one  talks,  not  to  lawyers  or  sociologists 
who  are  concentrating  on  penal  problems,  but  to  schoolchildren  and 
students,  at  least  in  the  United  Kingdom,  it  is  not  at  all  clear  that 
a  majority  would  even  wish  for  this  to  happen.  But  nevertheless, 
there  would  be  for  the  foreseeable  future  a  large  number  of  people 
breaking  the  law,  just  as  they  do  over  speed  limits,  customs  regula- 
tions, and  income  tax  return.  It  seems  that  one  would  have  to  treat 
a  cannabis  possession  similarly. 

I  might  say  I  find  it  dimcult  to  extrapolate  from  English  to 
American  practice  here.  We  do  not  have  traffic  tickets.  We  have, 
it  is  a  court  offense,  and  I  do  not  want  to  be  misinterpreted  by  say- 
ing that  I  think  cannabis  possession  should  be  treated  too  trivially. 
I  am  still  thinking  of  it  as  a  court  offense.  One  has  to  treat  can- 
nabis possession  similarly  accepting  that  the  majority  of  offenses 
would  not  be  recognized,  yet  maintaining  the  legal  position  about 
it.  Viewing  it  in  this  way  might,  indeed,  help  to  deglamorize  it. 

But  something  more  is  needed.  It  would  be  quite  right  for  the 
debate  to  sharpen  our  criticism  of  alcohol  and  tobacco.  Further,  for 
a  significant  number  of  youngsters,  who  have  found  a  reward  or 
consolation,  or  pleasure  in  cannabis,  there  is  the  question,  "If  not 
pot,  what?"  It  is  for  the  framing  of  a  constructive  answer  to  this 
question  that  new  creative  thinking  is  urgently  needed. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  professor.  I  have  a  lot  of  questions 
I  would  like  to  ask  but  we  have  had  such  a  situation  over  there 
in  the  Senate  floor  today  that  we  lost  about  half  of  our  time  so  I 


82 

am  going  to  let  counsel  do  most  of  the  questioning  so  we  can  get 
at  the  areas  that  we  want  to  put  in  the  record.  I  just  do  want  to 
ask  you  one  question. 

You  said,  in  your  statement  you  said  you  spent  a  good  deal  of 
time  upon  the  effects  upon  cells  of  cannabis  and  so  I  would  ask  you 
this  question :  in  your  opinion,  does  the  use  of  cannabis  result  in 
permanent  cell  damage  to  the  human  body  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  I  think  you  have  to  specify  the  cell.  It  seems  to  me 
it  is  quite  clear  from  the  recorded  evidence  about  bronchial,  pulmo- 
nary pathology  that  you  can  say  there  are  cells  that  were  damaged. 
I  think  the  fundamental  question  one  is  getting  at  in  that  question, 
well,  there  are  two  points.  It  has  been  said  that  cannabis  does  not 
affect  cells ;  a  popular  book  on  the  subject  says  no  sign  of  cell  damage 
has  been  recorded.  That  is  just  false.  There  are  many  such  recorded 
things  in  an  experimental  wrj. 

But  the  real  question,  to  my  mind,  is  does  it  cause  cellular  dam- 
age in  the  brain  of  an  irreversible  kind  ? 

Senator  Gurney.  That  was  the  next  question  I  was  going  to  put. 

Dr.  Paton.  And  I  do  not  think  we  can  say  other  than  that  there 
is  a  high  probability  of  that.  What  this  needs  is  top  class  neuro- 
pathology to  be  done  as  microscopical  sections  or  electromicroscopic 
photographs  showing  the  change  and  until  that  is  done  people  can 
disbelieve  it.  But  I  think  the  probabilities  are  high. 

Senator  Gurney.  In  any  event,  the  use  of  cannabis  certainly  has 
a  dramatic  effect  upon  cells  in  the  brain. 

Dr.  Paton.  Yes.  Functionally,  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  effect 
on  them. 

Senator  Gurney.  Counsel. 

Mr.  Martin.  Just  a  few  questions.  General  Lewis  W.  Walt,  when 
he  reported  to  the  subcommittee  on  the  world  drug  situation  in 
1972,  described  marihuana  as  a  kind  of  universal  threshold  drug 
through  which  young  people  make  their  entry  into  the  drug  cul- 
ture— the  drug  of  first  preference.  Would  you  consider  this  an 
accurate  description  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  On  a  simple  question  of  fact  in  British  surveys,  at 
least,  it  is  not  always  a  drug  of  first  preference,  and  I  think  if  one 
wants  to  look  generally  one  has  at  least  to  put  amphetamines  along- 
side. 

I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  the  occasion  of  entry  into  a  culture 
or  a  cause  of  the  culture.  I  was  very  struck,  despite  its,  I  suppose, 
descriptive  character,  by  the  paper  by  Drs.  Kolansky  and  Moore — 
I  think  it  is  being  talked  about  later — which  showed  not  only  that 
with  people  receiving  cannabis,  their  personality  and  behavior  went 
a  certain  way,  this  was  known,  but  also  that  if  they  gave  up  using 
cannabis  they  tracked  back  in  their  religions  or  in  matters  such  as 
habits  or  family  breakdown,  or  loss  of  jobs;  and  I  have  begun  to 
wonder,  as  other  people  have,  whether  it  is  not  that  cannabis  is 
an  entry  to  a  culture  but  that  cannabis  creates  an  outlook  which 
generates  a  culture.  So  that  I  do  not  quite  want  to  accept  General 
Walt's  remarks  and  I  just  make  those  comments  on  them. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you. 

Now,  it  is  also  widely  believed  in  this  country  that  marihuana  does 


83 

not  lead  to  tolerance  or  habituation.  That  statement  has  figured  in 
a  number  of  reports.  Does  this  conform  with  your  own  experience  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  I  have  had  no  direct  experience  in  man,  just  in  re- 
ports, but  it  seems  to  me  the  evidence  shows  it  is  false.  It  seems 
to  me  it  has  been  shown  to  be  false  since  Mayor  LaGuardia's  re- 
port in  the  1940's.  They  had  experiments  there  which  showed  users 
were  three  times  more  tolerant  than  nonusers,  and  all  the  evidence 
since  then  has  substantiated  this. 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  only  reason  to  suefffest  that  it  is  not  true 
is  what  I  regard  as  a  rather  poorly  controlled  study  by  Drs.  Weil, 
Zinberg  and  Nelsen  which,  of  course,  is  very  well  known. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  mentioned  the  fact.  Professor  Paton,  that  you 
have  by  this  time  accumulated  some  700  scientific  research  papers 
on  marihuana  since  you  first  embarked  on  this  study  some  5  or  6 
years  ago.  Would  you  be  prepared  to  offer  an  estimate  of  the 
consensus  of  these  papers? 

To  put  the  question  a  little  differently,  do  you  see  any  trend  in 
either  direction  on  the  part  of  cannabis  research  scientists  around 
the  world  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  I  think  scientists  as  a  body  tend  to  feel  vulnerable 
about  value  judgments,  and  I  would  say  the  bulk  of  these  papers 
rather  try  to  avoid  saying  cannabis  is  good  or  cannabis  is  bad. 
At  the  same  time  I  think,  and  I  will  not  put  it  stronger  than 
this,  there  is  a  mental  reserve  which  has  begun  to  appear  in  the 
scientific  literature  and  I  certainly  notice  this  at  scientific  meet- 
ings. There  was  a  meeting  a  fortnight  ago  in  England  where  I  was 
surprised  at  the  caution  about  cannabis  expressed.  I  would  link 
this,  perhaps  going  beyond  your  question,  by  saying  that  I  think 
too,  there  has  been  a  change  in  the  nature  of  the  work;  that  now 
in  what  I  call  cell  pathology,  analytic  work  on  cellular  behavior, 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  recent  work  of  that  kind,  and  much  less 
functional  experimental  psychology  studies,  although  that  goes  on. 
I  suspect  that  these  two  trends  are  linked.  People  are  seeing  how 
important  it  is  to  ask,  we  will  call  it  experimental  functional  or 
pathological  or  cellular  questions,  and  that  the  changes  toward 
reserve  of  attitude  and  in  experimental  techniques  in  fact  are  linked. 

Mr.  Martin.  If  I  understood  your  remarks  correctly,  Professor 
Paton,  what  you  said  implies  that  you  have  met  very  few  cannabis 
research  scientists  who  now  take  a  tolerant  or  benign  attitude  to- 
ward cannabis,  who  feel  that  it  is  not  seriously  harmful  and  we  do 
not  have  to  be  terribly  concerned  about  its  spread  through  society. 

Dr.  Paton.  I  do  not  usually  raise  this  subject  with  them  because 
it  is  in  the  area  where  one  feels  vulnerable.  But  wherever  I  have 
raised  it,  I  would  say  that  your  statement  is  absolutely  right.  Now, 
practically,  none  of  them  are  willing  to  let  cannabis  go  free. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  concludes  my  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  have  one.  Mr.  Chairman. 

Professor,  am  I  correct  in  my  understanding  from  your  testi- 
mony about  teratogenicity  that  when  a  pregnant  woman  smokes 
marihuana  her  baby  is  in  danger  ? 

Dr.  Paton.  Yes. 


84 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  have  no  other  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  One  final  question,  Professor.  You  mentioned 
in  your  comments  on  the  psychological  effects  of  cannabis,  you 
mentioned  down  here  that  there  were  paranoid  feelings,  changing 
mood,  cognitive  impairment,  loss  of  memory,  loss  of  concentration, 
that  sort  of  thing,  and  you  mentioned  that  in  respect  to  this  could 
be  reversibly  produced  by  single  doses  of  the  chemical  THC. 

My  question  is,  do  you  have  anything  to  say  on  the  continued 
and  persistent  use  of  cannabis  ?  Would'  it  bring  permanent  para- 
noid feelings  in  these  other  matters  that  I  just  referred  to? 

Dr.  Paton.  My  own  thinking  about  this  starts  with  a  paper  by 
Dr.  Bromberg  I  mentioned  earlier.  He  did  not  himself  analyze 
it  in  this  way  but  if  you  do  analyze  it1  you  end  up  roughly  like 
this  about  a  number *  of  psychopathological  responses  which  he 
studied  as  a  clinical  psychiatrist;  you  find  if  the  person  consumed 
cannabis  iust  a  day  or  two  they  recover  very  quickly  from  the 
psychopathology.  If  it  had  been  weeks  it  might  take  some  days. 
Tf  it  had  been  months  it  would  take  weeks.  If  it  was  longer  than 
that  it  became  months  or  more. 

This  agrees  with  everything  I  have  seen  privately.  I  do  not  think 
we  can  name  the  numbers  involved.  But  you  know,  so  long  as  one 
sees  these  results,  I  do  believe  that  it  is  a  major  thing;  so  much  so, 
if  I  can  say  so,  that  my  own  future  research,  for  which  the  Medical 
Research  Council  has  given  me  a  very  substantial  grant,  is  going 
to  be  to  try  to  throw  light  on  what  is  happening  not  only  after 
cannabis  but  after  alcohol,  and  barbiturates,  in  the  way  of  pro- 
longed damage.  The  evidence  as  it  stands  makes  me  believe  either 
that  the  drug  is  persisting  as  such  for  much  longer  than  we  think 
even  on  existing  evidence — which  would  just  suggest  for  months 
at  most — or  that  cells  have  been  killed  or  very  badly  damaged  and 
that  time  is  required  for  repair.  Or,  and  this  is  a  third  possibility 
which  has  not  been  suggested,  that  something  is  made  in  the  body 
from  the  drug,  what  one  calls  a  reactive  intermediate,  which  com- 
bines in  a  new  way  with  constituents  in  the  membrane  of  the  cell 
to  produce  more  or  less  permanent  changes  in  function.  These  are 
three  different  things,  and  my  own  personal  research  effort  is  going 
to  try  to  discover  which  and  what  the  laws  governing  these  are. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Well,  thank  you  very  much,  professor,  for  your 
contribution  to  this  panel  and  these  hearings. 

We  will  take  our  next  witness,  Dr.  Stenchever. 

Doctor,  would  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record  ? 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  MORTON  STENCHEVER,  UNIVERSITY  OF  UTAH 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes;  I  am  Dr.  Morton  Stenchever,  chairman  of 
the  Department  of  Obstetrics  and  Department  of  Gynecology  of  the 
University  of  Utah. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  will  go  into  a  few  questions  regarding  your 
background  to  determine  your  expertise. 

You  obtained  your  medical  degree  in  1956  at  the  University  of 
Buffalo? 


1  See   table   III,   page   352,   in    "Marihuana,"   ed.    R.   Mechoulain,   Academic  Press,   1973 
in  chapter  by  W.  D.  M.  Paton,  R.  G.  Pertwee  and  Elisabeth  Tylden. 


85 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  You  completed  your  residency  in  obstetrics  and 
gynecology  at  Columbia  Presbyterian  Medical  Center  in  1960? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  had  a  post-doctoral  fellowship  m  the 
field  of  mammalian  cell  genetics— or  what  is  that— cytogenetics— 
you  can  see  I  am  no  doctor — at  Case  Western  Reserve  University  in 
Cleveland  in  1962? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  since  1965,  you  have  been  in  charge  of  two 
major  laboratories  working  in  the  field  of  human  and  mammalian 
cytogenetics  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes.  Cytogenetics. 

Senator  Gurnet.  The  first  laV  oratory  you  took  charge  of  was  at 
Case  Western  Reserve  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Since  1970  you  have  been  in  charge  of  a  re- 
search laboratory  at  the  University  of  Utah,  where  you  also  serve 
as  chairman  of  the  department  of  obstetrics  and  gynecology? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  are  the  author  of  a  medical  textbook 
entitled,  "Human  Cytogenetics"  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  the  author  or  coauthor  of  some  50  scientific 
papers? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Generally,  what  are  they  on  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  The  majority  are  on  genetics. 

Senator  Gurnet.  The  most  recent  article  that  you  coauthored 
was  entitled,  "Chromosome  Breakage  in  Users  of  Marihuana",  which 
appeared  in  the  January  1974  issue  of  the  American  Journal  of 
Obstetrics  and  Gynecology  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  All  right,  Would  you  proceed  with  your  state- 
ment, Doctor? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes.  The  statement  I  am  presenting  today  is 
essentially  the  report  on  research  conducted  by  a  team  consisting  of 
myself,  and  my  colleagues,  Terry  J.  Kunysz  and  Marjorie  A.  Allen, 
at  the  University  of  Utah  College  of *  Medicine,  Department  of 
Obstetrics  and  Gynecology.  Basically,  this  research  was  performed 
during  1971  and  1972.  It  was  recently  described  at  greater  length 
in  the  January  issue  of  the  American  Journal  of  Obstetrics  and 
Gynecology. 

The  observation  that  psychoactive  drugs  could  cause  chromosome 
damage  in  users  was  introduced  by  Cohen  and  associates  and  others 
several  years  ago.  It  was  first  reported  that  chromosome  damage  oc- 
curred because  of  the  use  of  lysergic  acid  diethylamide,  LSD.  How- 
ever, a  number  of  studies  since  that  time  have  cast  doubt  on  whether 
the  drug  actually  damages  chromosomes  in  users  and  in  a  recent 
review  of  the  literature,  Lang  concluded  that  it  probably  did  not. 
Most  users  of  LSD  also  use  other  drugs,  particularly  marihuana. 
Gilmour  and  coworkers  found  no  increase  of  chromosome  aberrations 


in  light  users  of  marihuana.  However,  they  did  find  an  increase  in 
chromosome  breakage  in  11  heavy  users.  In  most  cases,  these  users 
were  taking  multiple  drugs.  In  a  study  of  rat  cells.  Pace  and  as- 
sociates could  find  no  significant  increase  in  chromosome  breakage 
after  exposure  of  the  cells  to  marihuana  in  vitro.  Studies  by  Neu 
and  colleagues  and  by  myself  and  Marjorie  Allen  yielded  no  in- 
creased incidence  of  chromosome  breakage  in  the  in  vitro  experi- 
ments in  human  cells  exposed  to  delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol,  THC, 
one  of  the  active  ingredients  in  marihuana.  Marihuana,  however,  is 
a  composite  of  a  number  of  agents  and  its  effect  on  chromosomes  is 
still  to  be  defined. 

It  was  the  purpose  of  our  study  to  report  the  results  of  the  effect 
of  marihuana  use  on  the  chromosomes  of  a  group  of  healthy  college 
students. 

Forty-nine  users — 29  males  and  20  females — and  20  control  sub- 
jects— 12  males  and  8  females — were  studied  concurrently.  The 
average  age  of  the  users  was  22.3  years,  with  a  range  of  17  to  34, 
and  the  average  age  of  the  control  subjects  was  28.7  years,  with  a 
range  of  13  to  52  years.  All  of  the  users  were  college  students. 
Some  of  the  controls  were  college  students  while  others  were  mem- 
bers of  the  staff  working  at  the  university.  I  might  add  it  was  diffi- 
cult to  find  people  who  were  not  using  marihuana.  No  individual 
in  the  control  group  has  been  exposed  to  any  drugs  or  medications 
for  6  months  prior  to  the  study,  other  than  an  occasional  aspirin,  and 
none  had  been  exposed  to  ionizing  irradiation  for  at  least  6  months. 
A  complete  medical  history  was  taken  on  all  individuals  in  the 
study,  as  was  the  recording  of  the  use  of  alcohol,  nicotine  and 
caffeine.  The  use  of  marihuana  was  tabulated  for  each  user  accord- 
ing to  the  date  and  amount  used,  classification  of  the  drug  as  esti- 
mated by  the  user,  and  any  other  drug  used  concurrently.  All  users 
smoked  as  their  means  of  ingestion.  Marihuana  had  been  used  for 
a  minimum  of  6  months  and  a  maximum  of  9  years,  with  an  aver- 
age of  3  years,  and  previously  had  been  used  between  5  hours  and 
30  days  prior  to  the  study. 

The  studies  were  carried  out  on  blood  leukocytes — these  are  white 
blood  cells — and  tissue  culture  and  harvesting  techniques  were  of  a 
standard  type  used  in  our  laboratory  for  several  years  and  reported 
on  many  occasions,  and  in  keeping  with  techniques  used  in  other 
laboratories.  When  slides  of  chromosome  spreads  were  prepared, 
they  were  coded  so  that  the  observer  would  not  know  whether  the 
slides  were  from  a  study  or  control  patient.  One  hundred  consecu- 
tive intact  methaphase  spreads  for  each  individual  were  scored 
for  chromosome  damage,  including  gaps  and  breaks,  and  for  the 
presence  of  abnormal  chromosomes.  Every  abnormal  cell  was  photo- 
graphed for  careful  analysis.  We  were  scoring  methaphase  plates — 
these  are  cells  which  are  undergoing  mitosic  cell  division,  and  that 
is  the  time  at  which  you  can  see  the  chromosomes  most  clearly.  A 
chromosome,  for  those  of  you  who  are  not  acquainted  with  it,  is  a 
structural  entity  in  the  cell  nucleus  which  contains  the  genes  and, 
therefore,  is  dircetly  related  to  the  phenomenon  of  heredity. 


87 

RESULTS 

Five  basic  questions  were  asked  during  the  study.  The  first  was 
"Does  marihuana  use  cause  chromosome  damage?"  There  was  an 
average  of  3.4  cells  with  chromosome  breaks — range  0  to  8 — per 
100  cells  per  user  and  1.2  cells  with  breaks — range  0  to  5 — per  100 
cells  per  control  subject.  In  other  words,  3.4  percent  of  the  cells  in 
the  users  showed  damage,  1.2  percent  of  the  cells  in  the  controls 
showed  damage.  The  difference  was  significant  at  the  p  <  0.05  level. 
While  there  was  an  increase  in  abnormal  chromosome  forms  seen 
in  the  users  group  over  those  in  the  controls,  however,  the  numbers 
of  cells  involved  were  small  enough  that  no  statistical  analysis 
could  be  carried  out. 

Question  2 — "Does  the  concurrent  use  of  other  drugs  influence 
the  extent  of  chromosome  damage?"  Twenty-seven  users  of  mari- 
huana reported  the  use  of  no  other  drugs  during  the  period  of  mari- 
huana use,  whereas  22  reported  the  use  of  other  drugs,  including 
barbiturates,  amphetamines,  tranquilizers,  mescaline,  LSD,  and 
heroin.  Chromosome  damage  in  users  of  marihuana  alone  averaged 
3.1  cells  with  breaks  per  100  cells,  whereas  users  of  marihuana  and 
other  drugs  averaged  3.7  cells  with  breaks  per  100  cells.  The  differ- 
ence was  not  statistically  significant. 

Question  3 — "Does  the  frequency  of  use  relate  to  the  extent  of 
damage?"  For  the  purposes  of  this  study  a  light  user  was  considered 
to  be  an  individual  who  used  marihuana  one  time  or  less  a  week 
and  a  heavy  user  a  person  who  used  marihuana  two  or  more  times 
a  week. 

Senator  Gurney.  When  you  say  using  marihuana,  are  you  talking 
about  smoking  one  cigarette  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  If  they  smoked  one  cigarette  once  or  less  a  week 
they  were  considered  light  users.  If  they  smoked  two  or  more  a  week 
they  were  considered  heavy  users,  a  bit  different  from  the  definitions 
you  heard  this  morning  but  this  was  the  standard  we  used. 

Light  users  had  used  the  drug  between  6  months  and  9  years 
with  an  average  of  2.9  years  and  had  last  used  the  drug  18  hours 
to  30  days  before  the  study,  with  an  average  of  5.4  days.  Heavy 
users  had  used  the  drug  9  months  to  7  years  with  an  average  of 
3.4  years  and  had  last  used  the  drug  5  hours  to  5  days  with  an 
average  of  1.4  days  prior  to  the  study.  Twenty-seven  users  fell  into 
the  heavy  use  category  and  had  an  average  breakage  rate  of  3.8 
cells  per  100  while  22  users  were  in  the  light  category  and  had  a 
breakage  rate  of  3.2  cells  per  100.  The  difference  was  not  significant. 

The  fourth  question  involved  whether  or  not  the  use  of  caffeine 
concurrently  with  marihuana  influenced  the  extent  of  chromosome 
damage.  While  very  few  of  the  individuals  did  not  use  caffeine,  the 
spread  among  nonusers  of  percent  breakage  was  such  that  there 
seemed  to  be  no  effect  additive  by  the  use  of  caffeine  over  the  use 
of  marihuana  alone. 

The  fifth  question  was  "Do  male  or  female  subjects  respond  dif- 
ferently to  marihuana  with  respect  to  chromosome  damage?"  No  sta- 
tistical difference  could  be  seen  between  them,  the  29  male  subjects 
having  a  breakage  rate  of  3.7  and  the  20  female  subjects  a  break- 
age rate  of  2.9  cells  per  100,  a  nonstatistically  significant  difference. 


88 


DISCUSSION 


All  data  from  the  study  including  historical  data  was  computer- 
ized and  multifactorial  analysis  carried  out.  That  is,  we  compared 
all  factors  to  all  other  factors  in  computerized  fashion.  The  only 
positive  correlation  of  statistical  significance  was  the  use  of  mari- 
huana and  the  presence  of  chromosome  damage. 

A  fault  of  previous  studies  had  been  that  frequently  the  drug 
users  had  been  individuals  on  multiple  drugs  and  with  poor  eating 
and  hygiene  habits.  The  individuals  in  our  study  were  all  college 
students  with  good  nutrition  and,  for  the  most  part,  good  hygiene. 
The  study  did  not  demonstrate  which  ingredient  in  marihuana  was 
capable  of  doing  the  chromosome  damage  and  future  studies  in 
our  laboratory  on  in  vitro  and  animal  studies  will  hopefully  deter- 
mine this  point.  The  study  did  not  shed  any  light  into  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  or  not  this  chromosome  breaking  agent  or  any  other 
chromosome  breaking  agent  is  capable  of  causing  abnormalities  of 
unborn  children,  an  increased  mutation  rate,  or  an  increased  inci- 
dence of  cancer.  However,  all  of  these  possibilities  are  potentially 
there  and  only  further  studies  of  a  more  detailed  nature  will  be 
able  to  answer  these  questions.  It  is  of  interest  that  a  recent  study 
published  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  by 
Jacobsen  and  Berlin  entitled  "Possible  Keproductive  Detriment  in 
LSD  Users"  pointed  out  that  there  was  indeed  a  higher  incidence  of 
abortion  rate  and  fetal  abnormalities  in  140  women  and  their  con- 
sorts who  were  using  LSD.  Unfortunately,  in  reading  this  paper 
it  became  evident  that  100  of  these  individuals  were  using  mari- 
huana as  well.  The  ability  to  pinpoint  actual  problems  with  any 
specific  drug  is  difficult  in  a  human  experiment  because  humans 
tend  to  experiment  with  a  number  of  different  drugs  and  also,  of 
course,  are  subjected  to  many  other  variables  in  their  life  style. 

In  conclusion,  we  feel  our  data  have  demonstrated  that  there  is  an 
increased  chromosome  breakage  rate  in  users  of  marihuana  and  that 
this  apparently  is  not  related  to  the  extent  of  use  of  the  drug,  as 
light  users  had  about  the  same  damage  rate  as  did  heavy  users.  We 
have  not  demonstrated  a  link  between  marihuana  use  and  an  in- 
crease in  fetal  damage  or  fetal  loss,  in  mutagenesis  or  in  the  in- 
creased incidence  of  cancer.  We  have  demonstrated  a  need  to  identify 
the  agent  in  marihuana  which  causes  chromosome  damage  and  our 
data  would  suggest  that  further  studies  in  both  human  and  animals 
should  be  undertaken  to  determine  if  indeed  this  agent  is  capable 
of  damaging  fetuses,  causing  an  increased  mutation  rate  and  pos- 
sibly being  related  to  the  development  of  neoplasms. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Well,  as  I  understand  it,  Doctor,  your  studies 
do  not  show,  even  though  there  was  chromosome  damage,  exactly 
what  the  effect  of  that  would  be.  But  let  me  ask  this  question.  Are 
there  any  medical  studies  that  show  what  the  effect  of  chromosome 
damage  is  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Most  of  the  data  on  what  chromosome  damage 
means  is  tangential.  For  instance,  in  people  who  are  irradiated 
there  is  a  higher  incidence  of  abnormal  children  and  a  higher  in- 
cidence of  cancer  development  and  they  indeed  have  an  increased 
number  of  chromosome  breaks  in  their  circulating:  cells  and  in  the 


89 

cells  of  other  tissue.  In  people  from  certain  families,  where  familial 
conditions  tend  to  be  associated  with  increased  chromosome  break- 
age rates,  in  other  words,  more  fragile  chromosomes,  the  incidence 
of  abnormal  children  and  cancer  is  higher  in  these  families.  A 
number  of  agents  such  as  the  anticancer  drugs  are  capable  of 
breaking  chromosomes  and  indeed  have  been  associated  with  a 
higher  incidence  of  malformation  in  fetuses.  So  it  is  tangential 
data.  When  you  find  a  chromosome  breaking  agent,  what  you  have 
is  an  agent  which  is  capable  of  getting  into  the  nucleus  of  a  cell 
and  causing  damage.  What  you  see  in  chromosome  damage  is  the 
process  of  cell  damage. 

Now,  there  are  a  number  of  conditions  where  rearrangements  for 
chromosomes  occur,  in  other  words,  two  chromosomes  breaking  and 
exchanging  parts  in  the  healing  process  leading  to  well-known  medi- 
cal abnormalities  which  are  diagnosable  and  which  are  associated 
with  chromosomal  abnormalities.  And  there  is  a  whole  slew  of  these 
conditions. 

One  has  to  ask  how  do  you  get  to  this?  What  makes  these  people 
have  rearranged  chromosomes,  and  we  suspect  somewhere  along  the 
line  breakage  took  place  and  rearrangement  took  place?  So  an  agent 
which  can  break  chromosomes  can  conceivably  lead  to  these  types 
of  problems. 

Another  thing  that  an  agent  that  can  break  chromosomes  can 
potentially  do  is  damage  the  genes  in  the  chromosomes  and,  there- 
fore, bring  about  a  mutation,  and  a  number  of  breaking  agents  are 
indeed  mutagens,  so  we  have  that  information. 

Now,  the  other  thing  that  is  potentially  there  is  that  the  damage 
to  the  nucleus  may  injure  the  cell  in  such  a  way  that  it  may  elude 
the  body's  basic  filtering  defense  mechanisms  and  lead  to  a  neo- 
plasm. We  know  most  cancers  do  come  from  one  cell  and  that  is 
a  cell  that  somehow  eludes  the  body  defense  mechanisms  and 
there  are  probably  people  who  are  more  likely  to  do  this  than 
others.  In  other  words,  cancer-prone  individuals.  So  if  chromosome 
damage  takes  place  in  these  people  they  are  at  greater  risk  of  de- 
veloping cancer  than  other  people. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  Mr.  Martin. 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  it  correct,  Dr.  Stenchever,  that  the  research  which 
you  conducted  with  your  colleagues  in  the  first  research  which  ex- 
perimentally substantiates  that  marihuana  results  in  chromosome 
breakage  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  make  the  point  in  your  paper  that  prior  re- 
searchers, or  a  number  of  prior  researchers,  have  come  up  with 
different  findings,  that  is,  they  found  no  evidence  of  breakage.  How 
do  you  account  for  the  difference  between  the  results  they  obtained 
and  the  results  you  obtained  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Well,  I  think  there  are  a  lot  of  reasons  for  that. 
Basically,  most  of  the  studies  were  small  studies,  where  a  number 
of  variables  were  not  controlled,  such  as  the  use  of  other  drugs.  I 
believe  that  in  coding  and  scoring  for  breaks  one  must  take  great 
care  in  doing  it  blindly  because  if  one  does  not  then  research  bias 
comes  into  it  whether  you  are  for  or  against  what  you  are  look- 
ing for.  It  is  only  human  to  only  see  what  you  want  to  see. 


90 

In  our  laboratory  all  of  the  studies  that  we  have  ever  carried 
out  in  the  area  of  chromosome  damage  have  been  done  blindly  so 
that  the  individual  doing  the  scoring  does  not  know  from  where 
the  cells  came  and  I  think  that  has  been  one  of  the  bigger  criticisms 
that  have  come  to  the  previous  studies. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  examining  all  the  facts  in  retropect,  Dr.  Stenchever, 
do  you  believe  that  you  and  your  colleagues  controlled  all  of  the 
factors  in  your  experiments  as  carefully  as  they  could  be  controlled  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Well,  we  controlled  bias  because  there  was  no 
way  that  the  individual  doing  the  scoring  could  know  who  it — 
which  individual  had  furnished  the  blood.  We  tried  to  control  the 
other  variables  by  taking  as  careful  a  history  as  we  could,  and  by 
computerizing  all  of  our  data  and  doing  multifactorial  compari- 
sons so  that  we  could  identify  at  least  which  areas  were  statistically 
significant.  In  that  respect  I  would  say  we  probably  controlled  the 
variables.  Of  course,  when  you  deal  with  humans  you  can  only 
go  by  what  they  tell  you  and  I  think  this  is  the  biggest  problem 
with  human  experimentation. 

Mr.  Martin.  Has  anyone  faulted  your  research  on  the  basis  of 
inadequate  controls  or  procedures? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Not  since  it  was  published. 

Mr.  Martin.  As  you  know,  or  as  you  are  probably  aware,  your 
study  does  not  agree  with  a  fairly  recent  study  performed  on  mari- 
huana smokers  in  Jamaica.  This  study  found  no  evidence  of  chromo- 
some breakage.  In  fact,  they  found  nonsmokers  had  chromosome 
damage  slightly  more  often  than  smokers.  Would  you  be  prepared 
to  offer  a  comment  on  the  difference  between  this  finding  and  your 
own  findings? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Well,  I  did  have  the  privilege  of  seeing  a  reprint 
of  this  material,  and  there  were  a  number  of  differences  between 
that  study  and  our  study,  as  I  recall.  There  may  have  been  some 
technical  problems  in  that  the  people  reporting  reported  on  25 
chromosome  spreads  per  individual  and  then  lumped  all  of  their 
data  together  so  they  were  comparing  the  total  number  of  cells  from 
users  with  the  total  number  of  so-called  controls.  I  think  this  is  a 
hazardous  thing.  You  have  to  consider  each  individual  separately 
and  you  have  got  to  do  enough  cells  so  that  you  can  overcome  the 
artifacts  of  small  numbers,  and  25  is  a  very  small  number. 

The  suggestion  that  only  25  cells  were  scored  would  make  me 
think  they  had  technical  difficulties  because  in  our  laboratory  it 
would  be  possible  to  score  10,000  cells  if  you  had  the  urge  to  do 
so.  We  get  lots  and  lots  of  material  to  work  with.  But  there  are 
tissue  culture  laboratories  that  probably  have  not  gotten  far  enough 
along  in  their  technique  to  where  this  is  possible,  and  when  I  see 
very  small  numbers  reported  it  implies  to  me  that  probably  the 
technique  is  at  fault.  When  the  technique  is  at  fault  then  a  tre- 
mendous number  of  other  variables  that  can  influence  the  perform- 
ance in  tissue  culture  come  into  play  and  with  critical  data. 

Control  groups  in  our  laboratory  consistently  have  breakage  rates 
of  between  1  and  2  percent.  And  as  it  has  turned  out  here,  1.2  per- 
cent and  that  is  what  we  find  year  after  year  after  year.  I  be- 


91 

lieve  their  control  group  showed  a  much  higher  number  of  break- 
age which  would  again  imply  there  were  other  factors  at  play. 

I  think,  all  in  all,  I  would  have  to  say  I  would  really  have  to 
see  the  specifics  of  their  data  but  I  would  guess  there  were  tech- 
nical variances  there  that  one  could  criticize. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  state  that  your  research  has  satisfied  you  that, 
contrary  to  previous  impressions,  LSD  is  not  responsible  for  human 
chromosome  breakage.  In  the  light  of  this,  would  you  say  that  LSD 
is  safe  to  use  or  reasonablv  safe  to  use  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  If  I  had  to  choose,  I  would  probably  use  mari- 
huana. I  think  LSD  is  potentially  a  very  dangerous  drug  and,  the 
fact,  that  we  could  not  prove  it  broke  chromosomes  would  not 
detract  from  my  saying  that  it  is  a  drug  that  should  not  be  used. 
One  thing  I  think  about  the  study  of  marihuana  was  their  inability 
to  find  chromosome  damage  in  pure  LSD  users  and  our  observation 
that  LSD  users  from  previous  studies  had  all  been  using  marihuana 
and,  at  the  same  time,  we  were  doing  a  series  of  studies  on  repro- 
ductive failure  in  our  laboratory  looking  at  couples  who  were  in- 
fertile or  having  habitual  abortion  looking  for  chromosome  reasons 
for  their  problem  and,  it  became  apparent  that  almost  without  ex- 
ception when  we  found  chromosome  breakage  in  these  people  _  we 
could  elicit  a  history  of  marihuana  use.  It  could  be  due  to  wide- 
spread use  of  marihuana  in  the  community  and  in  no  way  is  sci- 
entifically valid  but  nontheless  these  two  observations,  the  fact  we 
were  seeing  damage  in  marihuana  users  and  we  were  finding  no 
damage  in  pure  LSD  users,  we  were  fortunate  enough  to  have  a 
smaller  group,  which  led  us  into  the  experiment  I  just  reported. 
And  I  must  say  we  did  an  in  vitro  study  tissue  culture  study  with 
THC  which  turned  out  to  be  almost  negative  and  I  almost  lost 
interest  in  doing  the  current  study  because  I  thought  we  were  deal- 
ing with  a  drug  which  did  not  break  chromosomes.  But  having 
done  this  study  I  am  convinced  that  marihuana  is  a  breaking  agent. 

Mr.  Martin.  Have  you  been  the  object  of  any  attacks  or  abuse 
as  a  result  of  your  work  on  marihuana  and  chromosome  damage? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  Well,  I  think  that  basically  what  happens  is 
people  want  to  hear  what  they  want  to  hear,  and  when  I  first  pre- 
sented these  data  in  a  conference  a  year  ago  it  was  picked  up  by  the 
newspapers,  as  one  would  expect.  It  was  hot  copy,  and  without  any- 
one having  the  opportunity  to  look  at  our  data  or  our  studies  a 
number  of  criticisms  have  come  up.  They  said  it  obviously  was 
wrong,  and  I  was  attacked  because  I  was  an  obstetrician  and,  there- 
fore, knew  nothing  about  genetics.  Of  course,  they  did  not  real- 
ize I  had  had  training  in  genetics  as  well,  and  a  number  of  kinds  of 
superficial  criticism  came  up  which  implied  to  me  that  people  did  not 
want  to  believe  marihuana  was  a  damaging  drug. 

But  I  will  say  this:  since  the  paper  was  published  I  have  had  no 
criticisms  so  I  think  when  people  had  a  chance  to  look  at  the  data 
they  become  more  reasonable. 

IVIr.  Martin.  That  concludes  my  questions.  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  None,  sir. 


92 

Senator  Gurnet.  Just  one  question  of  interest  to  me.  Do  you  have 
any  problem  in  getting;  subjects  to  test  there  at  the  university? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  The  problems  I  have  are  in  finding  controls. 
Unfortunately,  marihuana  is  in  very  wide  use  even  on  our  campus. 
I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  this  year  but  3  years  ago  I  polled  100 
students  and  98  had  tried  marihuana  at  least  one  time. 

Senator  Gurnet.  How  about  LSD  ? 

Dr.  Stenchever.  LSD  has  fallen  off  in  its  use.  When  I  find  some- 
one who  has  used  LSD  by  and  large,  they  are  using  a  lot  of  dif- 
ferent drugs,  they  are  experimenting  at  a  higher  level  than  just 
marihuana  smoking. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  am  told  that  this  hearing  room  has  been  re- 
served beginning  a  few  minutes  from  now,  so  we  will  go  to  room 
1318.  That  is  down  the  hall  to  the  right  around  the  corner.  I  am 
sorry  we  have  to  do  this  but  we  thought  we  would  be  finished  long 
before  now.  Room  1318. 

[Whereupon,  the  hearing  was  moved  to  room  1318.] 

Senator  Gurnet.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order  again. 

I  hope  you  are  patient. 

Dr.  Nahas,  would  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record,  please? 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.   GABRIEL   NAHAS,   COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY 

Dr.  Nahas.  My  name  is  Gabriel  Nahas,  I  am  a  research  professor 
of  anesthesiology  at  the  College  of  Physicians  at  Columbia 
University. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  will  ask  you  a  few  questions  about  your  back- 
ground, you  were  born  in  Alexandria,  Egypt,  in  1920? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  You  entered  the  University  of  Toulouse  Medi- 
cal School  in  1938  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  While  you  were  at  the  medical  school  during 
World  War  II,  you  played  an  important  role  in  the  French  Resist- 
ance movement,  is  that  right? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  For  your  activities  in  the  French  Resistance,  you 
received  the  Legion  of  Honor  and  the  Croix  de  Guerre  from  the 
French  Government,  the  Order  of  the  British  Empire  from  the 
British,  and  the  Presidential  Medal  of  Freedom  with  Gold  Palm 
from  the  United  States,  is  that  correct  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Your  citation  for  the  Medal  of  Freedom  stated 
that  it  had  been  awarded  for  your  services  in  directing  an  evasion 
network  that  had  been  responsible  for  the  escape  of  200  allied  air- 
men, half  of  them  Americans,  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  certainly  want  to  congratulate  you. 

Doctor,  on  your  qualifications,  you  received  your  medical  degree 
from  the  Toulouse  Medical  School  in  1944  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 


93 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  were  subsequently  given  a  Ph.  D.  in 
physiology  from  the  University  of  Minnesota  Medical  School  in 
1953? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  from  1954  to  1955  you  served  as  chief  of 
the  laboratory  of  experimental  surgery  at  the  Hospital  Marie 
Lannelongue  in  Paris,  and  from  1957  to  1959  you  served  at  Walter 
Reed  Hospital  as  chief  of  the  respiratory  section  of  the  department 
of  cardiorespiratory  diseases  ? 

In  1959  you  joined  Columbia  University  as  associate  professor 
and  director  of  research  in  the  department  of  anesthesiology?  In 
this  post  you  have  had  the  rank  of  full  professor  from  1962  to  date? 
You  also  serve  as  an  adjunct  professor  at  the  Institute  of  Anes- 
thesiology of  the  University  of  Paris,  Faculty  of  Medicine? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  are  the  author  or  coauthor  of  more 
than  400  scientific  papers,  and  the  author  as  well  of  a  number  of 
monographs  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  In  December  1972  you  published  a  work  entitled 
"Marihuana,  Deceptive  Weed?" 

It  is  accurate,  is  it  not,  that  this  book  was  given  the  cold  shoulder 
by  all  of  the  TV  talk  shows;  that  the  New  York  Times  failed  to 
review  it,  even  though  it  had  favorably  reviewed  some  half-dozen 
books  that  were  promarihuana ;  and  that  finally  16  faculty  members 
of  the  Columbia  University  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  this 
last  January  28,  sent  a  joint  letter  to  the  editor  of  the  New  York 
Times  Book  Section,  urging  that  they  let  your  book  be  reviewed, 
in  the  interest  of  balance  and  fairness,  is  that  correct  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Did  the  senders  ever  receive  a  reply  to  this  letter  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  No. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Could  you  provide  a  copy  of  the  letter  for  the 
record  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

[The  letter  referred  to  follows :] 

College  of  Physicians  &  Surgeons  of  Columbia  University, 

Department  of  Neurology, 
New  York,  N.Y.,  January  28,  1974- 
Mr.  John  Leonard, 
Book  Review  Editor, 
New  York  Times  Book  Review  Section, 
New  York,  N.Y. 

Dear  Mr.  Leonard  :  The  undersigned  have  read  with  interest  the  book  by 
Dr.  Gabriel  Nahas,  "Marihuana,  Deceptive  Weed."  Dr.  Nahas,  after  thoroughly 
discussing  the  scientific,  medical  and  social  aspects  of  marihuana  concludes 
that  its  usage  is  quite  harmful  to  man  and  society.  This  stand  contrasts 
with  that  of  other  authors  such  as  Dr.  L.  Grinspoon  and  Mr.  E.  M.  Brecher 
who  minimize  the  danger  of  this  drug  and  advocate  the  legalization  of  mari- 
huana sales.  The  books  of  these  authors  were  favorably  reviewed  in  the 
Sunday  New  York  Times  Book  Review  Section. 

It  seems  therefore  only  fair  to  us  that  a  Review  of  the  book  by  Dr.  Nahas 
be  also  published  by   The  Times,   so   that  the   other   side   of  the   marihuana 


33-371    O  -  74 


94 

story   be   also   presented   to   your   readers.    This   Review   would   be   especially 
justified,    since    recent   scientific    evidence    indicates    that    marihuana    induces 
cellular  damage  in  man. 
Sincerely  yours, 

William  M.  Manger,  MD,  Ph.D. 
William  A.  Blanc,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Pathology ;  Robert  A.  Esser, 
M.D.,  Instructor  of  Psychiatry ;  Henry  C.  Frick,  M.D.,  Professor 
of  Clinical  Obs.  &  Gyn. ;  Allen  I.  Hyman  M.D.,  Asst.  Professor 
of  Anesthesiology ;  George  A.  Hyman,  M.D.,  Assoc.  Clinical 
Professor  of  Medicine ;  Joannes  H.  Karls,  M.D.  Assoc.  Professor 
of  Anesthesiology  ;  Donald  W.  King,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Pathol- 
ogy;  Ferdinand  F.  McAllister,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Clinical  Sur- 
gery; William  M.  Manger,  M.D.,  Ph.D.,  Instructor  of  Medicine; 
Lester  C.  Mark,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Anesthesiology ;  Kermit  L. 
Pines,  M.D.,  Assoc.  Professor  of  Clin.  Medicine ;  Herbert 
Rackow,  M.D.,  Professor  of  Anesthesiology ;  Ralph  W.  Richter, 
Assoc.  Clin.  Professor  of  Neurology ;  Sidney  C  Werner,  M.D., 
Professor  of  Clinical  Medicine;  Phillip  Zeidenberg,  M.D.,  Ph.  D., 
Professor  of  Psychiatry ;  and  Henry  Brill,  M.D.,  Lecturer  in 
Psychiatry,  also,  Member,  National  Commission  on  Marihuana 
and  Drug  Abuse. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you.  Dr.  Nahas.  We  will  now  proceed 
with  your  statement,  if  you  will,  please. 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  am  honored  to  be  invited  to  testify  as  a  scientific 
witness  before  this  distinguished  committee  of  the  U.S.  Senate.  For 
the  past  25  years  I  have  worked  in  the  laboratory  as  a  physiologist 
and  a  pharmacologist,  investigating  the  effects  of  different  drugs  on 
body  function.  In  the  past  4  years  I  have  concentrated  on  studying 
the  biological  effects  of  marihuana  products.  I  was  also  able  to  make 
field  surveys  in  areas  of  heavv  cannabis  usage  in  North  Africa. 
One  of  these  surveys  was  performed  under  the  sponsorship  of  the 
National  Institute  of  Mental  Health  with  Dr.  Zeidenberg  from 
Columbia  University  and  Dr.  LeFebure  from  the  College  de  France 
in  Paris.  We  visited  the  Rif  Mountains  of  Morocco.  \7v>  were  in- 
formed at  that  time  by  the  Under  Secretary  of  Health  of  Morocco 
that  heavy  marihuana  users  were  more  susceptible  to  tuberculosis 
which  in  that  area  constitutes  a  major  public  health  problem.  This 
considered  opinion  from  one  of  our  colleagues,  along  with  my  own 
observations  which  related  a  condition  of  general  physical  deteriora- 
tion to  chronic  marihuana  smoking,  led  me  to  investigate  the  effects 
of  this  drug  on  the  immunity  system  of  man.  This  immunity  is  a 
function  of  white  blood  cells,  the  T-lymphocytes,  which  specialize 
in  fighting  virus  infections  and  destroying  substances  foreign  to  the 
body  such  as  cancer  cells  or  tissue  transplants. 

With  my  colleagues,  Dr.  J.  P.  Armand,  Dr.  N.  Suciu-Foca,  and 
Dr.  Akira  Morishima,  we  studied  in  our  laboratory  at  the  College 
of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  of  Columbia  University,  51  marihuana 
smokers,  16  to  35  years  of  age  who  had  smoked  an  average  of  three 
cigarettes  of  marihuana  a  week  for  4  years.  This  study  was  pub- 
lished in  the  February  1  issue  1974  of  Science  and  I  will  not  dupli- 
cate this  study  by  reading  it  to  you.  I  will  just  summarize  it  and  then 
present  to  you  our  latest  work. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Is  it  fair  to  say  that  that  is  a  heavy  usage  of 
marihuana  ? 


95 

Dr.  Nahas.  No,  not  heavy  usage  as  it  has  been  defined  in  the 
Marihuana  Commission  report  or  Shafer  Commission.  Heavy  use 
in  the  Marihuana  Commission  report  refers  to  several  cigarettes  a 
day.  The  average  amount  of  cigarettes  smoked  by  these  young  peo- 
ple were  three  to  four  cigarettes  of  marihuana  a  week,  which  would 
be  called  rather  moderate  usage. 

These  subjects  did  not  use  other  drugs,  although  some  of  them 
also  smoked  tobacco  and  drank  alcoholic  beverages.  We  sampled 
blood  from  the  arm  vein  of  these  subjects  and  isolated  their  lympho- 
cytes (special  white  blood  cells).  These  cells  were  challenged  with 
special  substances  which  normally  make  them  divide  and  grow.  Such 
a  test,  the  blast  transformation  test,  is  presently  used  to  measure  the 
strength  or  response  of  the  immunity  system  of  the  body.  We  per- 
formed this  test  on  marihuana  smokers  and  on  control  subjects  who 
did  not  use  the  weed,  but  smoked  tobacco  and  drank  alcoholic  bever- 
ages. The  immunity  response  of  the  marihuana  smokers  was  40 
percent  less  than  that  of  the  nonsmokers.  Furthermore,  their  re- 
sponses was  similar  to  that  of  patients  with  cancer,  or  kidney  grafts — 
treated  with  immunosuppressants — who  were  tested  and  who  pre- 
sented documented  evidence  of  an  impairment  of  their  immunity 
system.  These  findings  on  man  were  verified  on  rhesus  monkeys 
studied  with  Dr.  Carolyn  Daul  in  the  laboratory  of  Dr.  Robert 
Heath  at  Tulane  University.  These  monkeys  were  made  to  smoke 
measured  amounts  of  marihuana  several  times  a  week  for  3  to  5 
months  by  a  technique  described  by  Dr.  Heath  this  morning.  We 
studied  the  blastogenic  response  of  the  lymphocytes  of  these  monkeys 
and  compared  them  to  that  of  lymphocytes  taken  from  monkeys  who 
were  not  "smoked".  The  blastogenic  response  of  the  lymphocytes 
from  the  monkeys  which  were  smoked  was  decreased  by  52  percent. 
This  was  true  for  the  two  monkeys  which  subsequently  died  in  this 
study. 

Mr.  Martin.  Could  you  define  what  you  mean  by  blastogenic 
response  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  mean  that  their  immunity  response  as  measured  by 
this  test  was  decreased  to  less  than  50  percent  of  the  controlled  re- 
sponse in  the  monkeys  which  were  not  smoked. 

Mr.  Sotjrwtne.  May  I  ask  a  question?  Do  you  conclude  from  this, 
Dr.  Nahas,  that  marihuana  is  an  immuno-suppressant  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  in  the  test  tube,  yes.  One  cannot,  as  I  will  dis- 
cuss later,  one  cannot  document  presently  that  marihuana  smokers 
present  a  clinical  decrease  of  their  immune  response  which  would  be 
indicated  by  an  increased  incidence  of  virus  disease,  and  of  such 
things  as  cancer.  This  we  cannot  say.  The  only  thing  we  can  say 
is  that  the  lymphocytes  do  not  respond  as  normally  as,  that  is  to 
say,  as  the  lymphocytes  of  subjects  that  do  not  smoke  marihuana. 

Mr.  Soubwine.  It  is  not  just  a  case  of  not  responding  normally. 
I  understood  you  to  say  it  is  a  50-percent  reduction. 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes.  in  response. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  It  is  cut  in  half  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct,  yes. 


96 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Thank  you. 

Dr.  Nahas.  We  are  continuing  to  study  the  immune  response  of 
these  primates  with  Dr.  Heath. 

The  mechanism  of  this  decrease  in  the  division  of  lymphocytes 
was  clarified  in  another  series  of  experiments  to  be  described  by  Dr. 
Morishima  who  showed  that  these  lymphocytes  from  marihuana 
smokers  could  not  increase  the  DNA  production  required  for  their 
proper  division.  DNA  (deoxyribonucleic  acid)  is  the  basic  chemical 
contained  in  the  core  of  all  our  cells.  DNA  carries  the  genetic  code 
and  allows  each  daughter  cell  to  be  identical  to  the  mother  cell 
from  which  they  derive. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  May  I  bother  once  more,  Mr.  Chairman  ? 

I  think  it  will  help  clarify  the  record.  Is  it  true,  Doctor,  as  I 
understand  it,  that  there  is  and  must  be  an  increase  in  the  pro- 
duction of  DNA  before  the  cell  division  takes  place? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  This  is  a  necessary,  a  prerequisite,  so  that  what  you 
are  saying  here  is  that  there  was  an  inhibition  of  the  necessary  in- 
crease which  would  have  permitted  cell  division.  In  other  words, 
this  is  the  basis,  the  explanation,  for  the  reduction  in  cell  division? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Thank  you,  sir. 

Dr.  Nahas.  Similar  observations  were  also  made  on  lymphocytes 
sampled  from  subjects  who  did  not  smoke  marihuana.  These  lym- 
phocytes were  incubated  in  a  test  tube  with  very  minute  amounts  of 
chemicals  isolated  from  marihuana.  These  lymphocytes  presented  the 
same  impairment  in  division  and  DNA  production  as  those  taken 
from  marihuana  smokers. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  prepared  several  exhibits  and  I  would  like 
to  have  your  permission  to  enter  them  into  the  record. 

Senator  Gurnet.  They  may  be  admitted. 


97 


exhibit  1 


MIGRATION  INHIBITION 
FACTOR 


NORMAL    (  100  %) 

Cancer    40'60  % 
Transplant  Patients  50  % 
Marihuana  Smokers   40  % 


PHYTOHEMAGLUTININ   LYMPHOBLAST 
LYMPHOCYTE        (PHA)        TRANSFORMATION 


Technique  used  to  test  the  immunity  response  of  man 


98 

Dr.  Nahas.  Exhibit  1  is  a  brief  description  of  the  technique  used 
to  test  the  immunity  system  of  a  subject.  Lymphocytes  sampled 
from  the  patient  are  incubated  or  "cultured"  for  72  hours  in  a 
test  tube  with  a  substance  PHA  which  will  cause  the  cells  to  in- 
crease the  formation  of  DNA  and  then  to  divide.  This  increase  is 
indicated  by  the  growth  of  the  cell  in  the  diagram. 

Senator  Gttrney.  These  exhibits  are  the  ones  that  are  attached  to 
your  prepared  statement  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct,  yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  They  will  all  be  admitted  in  the  record. 

Dr.  Nahas.  The  ability  of  these  cells  to  increase  the  formation  of 
DNA  may  be  evaluated  by  the  rate  of  uptake  of  radioactive  thymi- 
dine. Thymidine  is  a  precursor,  a  building  block  so  to  speak,  essen- 
tial for  the  formation  of  DNA.  Molecules  of  thymidine  can  be  made 
radioactive,  and  the  rate  at  which  they  are  incorporated  by  the 
lymphocytes  can  be  measured  on  a  scintillation  counter  (an  instru- 
ment which  measures  radioactivity).  You  will  note  that  after  the 
lymphocyte  has  been  stimulated  to  grow  it  will  produce  a  number  of 
substances,  interferon,  transfer  factor,  and  so  on,  which  are  used  to 
defend  our  body  against  disease.  Note  that  if  the  normal  lympho- 
cytes from  a  group  of  healthy  volunteers  have  a  rate  of  thymidine 
incorporation  of  100  percent,  that  of  marihuana  smokers  is  de- 
creased by  40  percent.  The  ability  of  the  lymphocytes  of  marihuana 
smokers  to  produce  DNA  is  similar  to  that  of  the  lymphocytes  of 
the  cells  sampled  from  cancer  patients. 


99 


EXHIBIT   2 


H   -  THYMIDINE  UPTAKE  OF  T  LYMPHOCYTES  IN  MARIHUANA  SMOKERS 
COMPARED  WITH  NORMAL  AND  IMMUNE  SUPPRESSED  SUBJECTS 


PHA 

MLC 

SUBJECTS 

NO.  TESTED 

CPM 

SE       P 

NO.  TESTED 

CPM 

SE 

P 

NORMAL  CONTROLS 

81 

23250 

1878 

81 

26400 

1789 

MARIHUANA  SMOKERS 

51 

13779 

1195  <0.00O5 

34 

15679 

2867 

<;o.oos 

CANCER  PATIENTS 

PRIMARY  TUMORS 

16 

17501 

480  <0.0005 

16 

14894 

3067 

< 0.0005 

REGIONAL  SPREAD 

23 

13345 

2533  <0.0005 

23 

15816 

1970 

<0.0005 

DISTANT  SPREAD 

21 

10516 

2594  <0.0005 

21 

8968 

2053 

<0.0005 

TRANSPLANT  PATIENTS 

24 

12307 

1712 

<0.0005 

UREMIC  PATIENTS 

26 

12001 

1360 

<0.0005 

EXHIBIT  3 


Uptake  of  H  -delta -9-THC 

by  human  lymphocytes 

(in  CPM) 


Time 

r 

15' 

30' 

60' 

120' 

240' 


Without    PHA 


487 

± 

35 

893 

± 

92 

856 

± 

61 

651 

± 

118 

824 

± 

88 

930 

±215 

With    PHA 

517  ±39 
903  ±76 
872  ±  32 
881  ±22 
822  ±  114 
790  ±  III 


100 


exhibit  4 


C2  H5OH 


10 


-  6 


io"5  io"4  io"3 

M  CONCENTRATION 


-  2 


Inhibitory  effects  of  the  cannabinoids  (marihuana  products) 
delta  9  tetrahydrocannabinol  (THC),    cannabinol  (CBN), 
cannabidiol  (CBD)  on  PHA  induced  lymphocyte  transforma- 
tion as  measured  by     H  thymidine  incorporation  after  three 
days  of  culture.     This  effect  is  compared  to  that  of  aspirin, 
caffeine  and  ethyl  alcohol  (C2H5OH).    All  experiments 
were  done  in  triplicate  cultures.     The  counts  per  minute 
(CPM)  given  are  the  average  count  of  4  to  5  parallel  cultures 
±  standard  error.     Inhibition  of  lymphocyte  transformation  was 
calculated  in  reference  to  the  CPM  of  the  control  culture. 
The  dotted  line  represents  %  of  thymidine  uptake  of  unstim- 
ulated cells.    A  concentration  of  1  (f    marihuana  products 
(THC,    CBD,   CBN)  would  correspond  to  30  mg,   which 
would  be  the  average  amount  contained  in  a  1   gram  mari- 
huana   cigarette.    A  concentration  of  1  0       alcohol  would 
correspond  to  5gm,    the  amount  contained  in  a  glass  of  wine. 


101 

Exhibit  2  details  our  results  as  they  are  actually  measured  by  the 
scintillation  counter,  with  the  figures  that  we  obtained  from  the 
counter.  In  these  experiments  two  different  substances  were  used 
to  stimulate  the  lymphocytes  into  growing  and  dividing.  The  PHA 
and  the  MLC  test.  "Roth  gave  similar  results. 

Exhibit  3  summarizes  an  experiment  which  indicates  that  one 
of  the  most  active  substances  in  marihuana.  THC.  does  penetrate 
into  the  lymphocytes  rather  rapidly.  This  experiment  was  per- 
formed with  radioactive  THC  which  was  incubated  with  the  lym- 
phocytes. After  15  minutes  THC  has  reached  a  plateau  in  the  cell. 

Exhibit  4  illustrates  our  latest  series  of  experiments  which  were 
performed  with  Dr.  Hsu  and  Dr.  DeSoize.  In  these  experiments, 
lymphocytes  taken  from  subjects  who  did  not  smoke  marihuana 
were  incubated  with  some  of  the  chemical  substances  isolated  from 
marihuana,  THC,  CBD,  CBN,  compounds  which  were  given  to  us 
by  the  National  Institute  of  Mental  Health.  Of  these  substances 
onlv  THC  is  "psychoactive",  impairs  psychomotor  performance, 
and  is  considered  the  major  biologically  active  substance  of  mari- 
huana. In  this  experiment  it  is  made  clear  that  not  only  is  THC 
immuno-suppressive  but  that  also  the  two  nonactive  substances  in 
marihuana,  CBN  and  CBD  have  a  similar  effect.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  seems  that  these  nonactive  substances  have  a  greater  potency 
to  inhibit  DNA  formation  in  the  lymphocytes  than  does  THC. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  sake  of  the  record,  might 
I  inquire?  You  used  the  phrase  nonactive  substances.  You  really 
mean  substances  formerly  deemed  to  be  nonactive  and  you  now 
have  proved  they  are  active,  is  that  correct  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes.  Such  an  experiment  comes  as  no  surprise  to 
Dr.  Paton,  who  has  repeatedly  emphasized  that  THC  was  only  one 
of  the  many  substances  in  marihuana  to  change  cellular  function. 
Note  that  the  potency  of  these  cannabis  products  to  impair  the  pro- 
duction of  DNA  by  lymphocytes  is  about  50  times  greater  than 
that  of  aspirin  and  caffeine,  and  note  also  that  it  takes  concentra- 
tions^ 10,000  times  greater  for  alcohol  (C2H50H).  And  even  with 
sufficient  concentrations  10,000  times  greater  there  is  no  effect  on 
cell  division.  Therefore,  as  far  as  DNA  formation  and  cell  di- 
vision is  concerned  alcohol  has  very  little  effect  in  this  experiment 
as  already  mentioned  by  Dr.  Paton. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Doctor,  at  this  point  for  the  sake  of  the  record, 
would  you  define  what  the  chemical  substance  CBD,  and  CBN  are? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes.  CBN  is  cannabinol  and  CBD  is  cannabidiol. 
These  two  substances  are  present  in  the  leaves  and  flowering  tops  of 
cannabis,  and  in  the  so-called  low  qualitv  "grass"  the  concentration 
of  CBN  is  quite  high  while  that  of  THC  is  low.  And  it  is  interest- 
ing to  note  that  insofar  as  DNA  production  is  concerned,  even 
some  people  who  smoke  low  grade  marihuana  might  still  impair 
their  lymphocytes.  Now,  on  this  chart 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Forgive  me,  please,  I  have  become  confused  and 
if  I  may  be  permitted,  may  I  ask  two  questions?  You  have  said 
that  the  potency  of  these  cannabis  products  to  impair  the  produc- 
tion of  DNA  by  lymphocytes  is  50  times  greater  than  that  of  aspirin 
and  caffeine.  In  other  words,  it  takes  50  times  as  much  aspirin  or 
caffeine  as  it  does  THC  to  cause  the  impairment.  And  then  you 


102 

say  it  takes  concentrations  10,000  times  greater  for  alcohol  to  have 
an  effect. 

So  that  we  can  understand  this,  how  much  alcohol  is  involved  m 
a  concentration  10,000  times  greater  than  the  amount  of  cannabis 
which  will  impair  the  production  of  DNA  by  lymphocytes  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  such  concentrations  are  never  reached  in  the 
bloodstream  of  man,  they  would  amount  to  5  percent  of  alcohol.  The 
highest  concentration  is,  I  think,  1  percent — no,  the  concentration 
of  alcohol  which  is  associated  with  intoxication  is  50  milligrams  per- 
cent. And  I  say  that  the  concentration  we  use  in  this  experiment  is  in 
excess  of  500  milligram  percent.  So  10  times  more  than  what  is  con- 
sidered a  state  of  intoxication. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  mean  in  order  to  have  this  kind  of  an  effect 
on  the  formation  of  DNA  by  the  lymphocytes  it  would  take  a  con- 
centration of  alcohol  in  the  blood  of  50  percent? 

Dr.  Nahas.  No,  500  milligrams  percent  that  is  500  milligrams  of 
alcohol  in  100  milliliters,  or  y10th  of  a  liter  of  blood. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  500  milligrams  percent  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  500  milligrams  percent  or  more. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Would  inhibit  it  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  This  would  result  in  the  death  of  the  subject.^ 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  percent  of  cannabis  products  which  will  in- 
hibit it  must  be  almost  infinitesimal,  1/10,000's  of  that,  is  that  right? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  A  mere  trace  in  the  blood. 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  more  than  a  trace,  something  which  can  be 
measured. 

Mr.  Martin.  How  many  milligrams  would  be  involved? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  to  give  you  an  idea,  a  marihuana  cigarette,  con- 
tains an  amount  of  cannabinoids — cannabis  products — correspond- 
ing to  10  to  the  minus  4 — about  30  milligrams. 

Senator  Gurnet.  We  are  talking  about  exhibit  4  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  State  that. 

Dr.  Nahas.  30  milligrams  of  cannabis  products — of  THC  and  other 
marihuana  constituents. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  cannot  translate  milligrams  into  the  blood.  If 
it  takes  5  percent  alcohol  in  the  blood  to  cause  this  damage  and 
1/10,000's  amount  of  that,  then  5/10.000's  of  cannabis  products  must 
be  enough  in  the  blood  to  cause  the  damage,  is  that  right  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  these  experiments  are  experi- 
ments which  are  made  in  vitro,  in  the  test  tube. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  am  not  challenging  you,  sir,  I  am  only  seeking 
light.  We  have  these  figures  here,  50  times,  10,000  times,  and  I  am 
trying  to  relate  them. 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  it  is  easy  to  relate  them  in  the  test  tube  because 
the  volume  there  is  small  and  exact  concentration  of  these  substances 
can  be  measured.  However,  in  the  body,  especially  for  cannabis 
products,  it  is  very  difficult  to  measure  the  exact  amount  which  is  at 
any  time  in  the  plasma. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Then,  your  10,000  times  is  not  a  direct  relationship 
to  the  percentage  needed  in  the  blood.  Your  10,000  times  is  related 
to  the  actual  amount  in  concentrated  form  in  the  test  tube? 


103 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  right,  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  All  right.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  Proceed. 

Dr.  Nahas.  But  what  I  want  to  say  is  that  the  concentration  of 
THC.  CBD.  and  CBN  which  in  the  test  tube  inhibits  DNA  forma- 
tion, is  reached  in  the  plasma  of  man,  if  you  refer  yourself  to  the 
studies,  to  the  few  studies,  where  plasma  concentrations  of  canna- 
binoids  are  available. 

Now,  it  would,  therefore,  appear  that  lymphocyte  production  of 
DNA  as  measured  by  the  incorporation  of  3H  thymidine  is  impaired 
by  marihuana  products.  The  ability  of  delta-9  THC  and  of  other 
cannabinoids  to  limit  3H  thymidine  incorporation  by  lymphocytes 
in  cell  culture,  although  not  previously  described,  is  consistent  with 
some  of  the  characteristics  of  these  compounds  which  are  not  soluble 
in  water  and  accumulate  in  fat.  The  reduced  incorporation  of  3H 
thymidine  after  exposure  of  the  lymphoctyes  to  concentration  of 
cannabinoids  which  may  be  reached  during  chronic  cannabis  con- 
sumption could  decrease  body  defenses  as  claimed  by  some  of  our 
colleagues  in  North  Africa.  Such  an  outcome  would  be  damaging 
when  it  is  desirable  that  these  defense  mechanisms  remain  intact  as 
in  the  cases  of  cancer  and  other  poorly  understood  diseases.  The 
clinical  significance  of  these  observations  can  only  be  assessed  by 
what  are  called  "epidemiological  investigations".  These  investiga- 
tions, patterned  after  the  "Framingham  studies"  of  tobacco  smokers, 
are  exceedingly  expensive;  they  would  have  to  be  carried  out  on  a 
large  population  of  marihuana  smokers  to  be  studied  year  after  year 
for  several  decades.  In  this  investigation  an  appraisal  of  the  immune 
response  of  the  marihuana  user  should  be  systematically  studied  so 
as  to  better  appreciate  the  development  of  the  many  different  patho- 
logical conditions  in  which  the  immune  system  plays  an  important 
role. 

However,  these  observations,  taken  in  the  general  context  of  the 
damaging  effect  of  marihuana  on  the  DNA  of  dividing  cells,  are 
indicative  that  long-term  marihuana  usage  by  a  significant  fraction 
of  the  American  population  would  constitute  a  major  public  health 
problem. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

As  I  understand  it  then,  not  being  a  scientist,  I  am  not  sure  I 
understood  what  all  these  figures  mean,  but  I  think  I  understand 
what  you  are  saying,  that  is,  the  use  of  marihuana  severely  reduces 
the  user's,  a  user's  resistance  to  disease  in  sickness,  is  that  another 
word  for  it  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  that  is  what  it  might  do  in  the  long  run.  Actually, 
what  we  have  shown  is  that  the  use  of  marihuana  decreases  the 
ability  of  the  cells  to  fulfill  their  function  of  dividing  rapidly.  The 
lymphocytes  are  cells  which  have  to  divide  rapidly  whenever  the  body 
is  attacked  by  a  virus,  for  instance.  In  marihuana  smokers  we  found 
that  these  lymphocytes  do  not  divide  as  rapidly  as  well  as  those 
sampled  from  people  who  did  not  smoke  marihuana.  But  we  have 
not  made  an  epidemiological  study  which  would  be  required  to  corre- 
late a  higher  incidence  of  all  types  of  disease  with  length  of  the 


104 

marihuana  smoking,  similar  to  those  which  have  been  done  with 
tobacco  smokers. 

It  is  only  in  the  past  12  years  that  tobacco  smoking  has  been  cor- 
related with  cancer,  heart  disease  and  other  unhealthy  conditions. 
Before  that  there  was  no  physical  evidence  that  such  a  correlation 
existed,  although  it  did  exist  in  fact. 

Senator  Gurnet.  But  the  inference  is  that  use  of  marihuana  makes 
people  more  susceptible  to  illnesses  without  defining  all  the  various 
illnesses  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  an  inference  which  only  further  studies  would 
be  able  to  determine. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  the  study  just  reported  you  collaborated  with 
three  senior  scientists  of  the  'College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  of 
Columbia  University.  We  are  going  to  introduce  Dr.  Morishima,  who 
was  one  of  your  collaborators.  Could  you  tell  us  something  briefly 
about  the  qualifications  of  your  other  two  collaborators? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Dr.  Suciu-Foca  is  an  immunologist  and  is  chief  of  the 
Laboratory  of  Clinical  Immunology  of  the  College  of  Physicians 
and  Surgeons.  She  has  a  world-known  reputation,  especially  in  the 
techniques  that  we  used  and  which  she  has  perfected. 

Dr.  Jean  Pierre  Armand  is  also  an  immunologist  and  he  is  associ- 
ate director  in  the  Cancer  Institute  of  the  University  of  Toulouse  in 
France. 

Mr.  Martin.  So  these  were  all  eminently  qualified  scientists  who 
worked  with  you  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes.  Such  a  study  required  many  different  disciplines 
and  in  order  for  these  studies  to  be  valid  one  has.  to  work  in  conjunc- 
tion with  very  competent  people  in  different  specialties. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  order  to  clarify  a  point  about  which  I  feel  there 
may  have  been  some  misunderstanding,  I  would  like  to  suggest  the 
advantage  of  trying  to  transfer  from  percentages  to  quantities. 
Would  it  be  roughly  accurate  that  in  order  to  get  intoxicated  on 
whiskey  you  need  10  to  15  ounces  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  beg  your  pardon? 

Mr.  Martin.  Ten  to  15  ounces,  a  third  to  half  a  bottle  to  get  intoxi- 
cated with  whiskey 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes 

Mr.  Martin  [continuing].  Roughly. 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Or  8  to  15  ounces. 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Certainly,  1  ounce  would  not  do  it. 

How  much  THC  do  you  need  to  get  yourself  stoned? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  in*  terms  of  ounces  a  very  small  percent  of  an 
ounce,  I  would  say  10  milligrams. 

Mr.  Martin.  Ten  milligrams. 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  about  one  thousandth  of  an  ounce. 

Mr.  Martin.  About  one  thousandth  of  an  ounce? 

Dr.  Nahas.  About  one  thousandth  of  an  ounce,  I  would  say. 

Mr.  Martin.  So  that  1  ounce  of  pure  THC  would  be  enough 
for 

Dr.  Nahas.  One  thousandth  of  an  ounce,  I  beg  your  pardon. 

Mr.  Martin.  One  thousandth  of  an  ounce? 


105 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  So  that  1  ounce  of  pure  THC  would  be  enough  for 
1000  intoxications.  We  are  talking  about  two  substances 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin  [continuing].  Whose  capacity  for  intoxicating  people 
is  really  poles  apart.  I  mean,  you  need  a  tiny,  tiny  amount  in  one 
case  and  a  fairly  large  amount  in  the  other  case  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  With  great  respect,  in  intoxication  a  high  is  not 
necessarily  the  same  thing  as  the  inhibition  against  production  or 
the  formation  of  DNA  you  testified  about  earlier.  A  man  may  get 
drunk  on  alcohol  without  any  inhibition  of  the  formation  of  DNA? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  mean,  as  I  understand  it,  he  cannot  get  a  high  on 
pot  without  some  measure  of  such  inhibition  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Without,  well,  over  a  period  of  time,  that  is  true,  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  All  right. 

Dr.  Nahas.  You  can  take  a  drink  every  evening  and  not  impair 
your  DNA,  that  is  correct.  But  you  cannot  smoke  a  marihuana  cig- 
arette every  day  and  not  run  the  risk  of  impairing  DNA  in  some 
of  your  dividing  cells. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Dr.  Nahas. 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  believe  you  have  stated  that  your  research  raised 
the  possibility  of  serious  genetic  damage  if  the  cannabis  epidemic 
remains  unchecked.  Would  you  like  to  comment  on  that,  or  would 
you  like  to  leave  that  for  Dr.  Morishima? 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  think  Dr.  Morishima  is  much  more  competent  than  I 
in  that. 

Mr.  Martin.  Does  the  amount  of  cannabis  being  consumed  in  the 
United  States  today — that  is,  based  on  rough  calculations  which,  in 
turn,  are  based  on  what  we  know  about  the  quantities  interdicted  by 
the  Federal  authorities — does  the  amount  being  used  justify  the 
term  "epidemic"? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  certainly,  it  does  since  I  think  you  calculated 
that  about  50  cigarettes  containing  10  milligrams  THC  have  been  con- 
sumed in  1973  by  every  single  citizen  of  the  United  States,  including 
newborns. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  mean  a  quantity  equal  to  50  cigarettes  per  per- 
son has  been  consumed? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  upon  that  basis  it  certainly  is  an  epidemic. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  It  is  a  different  thing  from  saying  that  everybody 
in  the  country  has  consumed  50  marihuana  cigarettes. 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  agree. 

Mr.  Martin.  Point  conceded.  You  have  in  recent  years,  Dr.  Nahas, 
attended  a  number  of  national  and  international  conferences  on 
cannabis  research? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Eoughly,  how  many  would  you  say  you  have  at- 
tended ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Four  or  five,  maybe  a  half-dozen.  There  have  been 
many. 


106 

Mr.  Martin.  Has  there  been  any  discernible  trends  at  these  con- 
ferences? Would  you  be  prepared  to  venture  an  estimate  on  the 
percentage  of  the  scientists  at  these  conferences  who  lean  toward  the 
conclusion  that  marihuana  is  relatively  harmless  and  the  percentage 
whose  findings  have  convinced  them  that  it  is  a  very  dangerous 
drug  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  I  think  Dr.  Paton  did  answer  this  question  in 
a  very  appropriate  fashion  and  I  would  certainly  agree  with  what 
he  said.  You  see,  the  scientist  is  essentially  a  human  being  who  is 
swayed  by  public  opinion  like  any  other  human  being.  Before  1960 
the  majority  of  scientists  had  all  agreed  marihuana  was  dangerous, 
very  much  so,  and  then  came  this  great  new  wave  of  marihuana  use 
and  public  opinion  did  change  and  then  in  some  respect  it  did  in- 
fluence the  opinion  of  the  scientists,  because  the  facts  did  not.  We 
were  told  4  or  5  years  ago  that  marihuana  was  harmless  but  there 
Avas  no  hard  fact  to  support  this  contention,  and  there  was  a  very 
strong  body  of  historical  evidence  indicating  that  it  was  very  harm- 
ful. But  many  people  were  swayed  by  this  new  fashion.  So  I  think 
that  the  opinion  of  scientists  is  very  much  influenced  by  the  fashion 
in  which  they  live.  Your  question  is  difficult  to  answer. 

Mr.  Martin.  When  we  talk  about  historical  evidence,  what  you 
are  saying  in  effect  is  that  over  the  centuries  wise  men  in  many 
countries  have  been  very  critical  of  cannabis,  and  have  warned 
against  its  use,  even  though  they  did  not  have  the  advantage  of 
modern  scientific  technology? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  This  was  based  on  empirical  observations? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes,  and  they  still  do.  I  am  sure  in  the  countries  which 
I  visited,  in  Morocco  and  elsewhere,  they  will  never  find  by  them- 
selves evidence  for  the  physical  damage  that  cannabis  has  produced 
in  their  population  because  they  do  not  have  the  tools  to  do  it.  But 
still  they  believe  that  it  is  most  harmful. 

Mr.  Martin.  What  you  are  saying,  if  I  understand  your  remark, 
Dr.  Nahas,  is  that  the  mere  fact  that  Shakespeare  did  not  have  a 
degree  in  psychology  from  Harvard  does  not  mean  that  Shakespeare 
was  ignorant  of  human  psychology? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  Coming  closer  to  the  present,  it  is  accurate  that  an 
international  scientific  conference  convened  in  1924  under  the  aus- 
pices of  the  League  of  Nations,  voted  unanimousy  to  list  cannabis 
as  a  dangerous  substance  and  they  voted  to  cooperate  with  each 
other  in  seeking  to  eradicate  it? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Did  the  scientists  who  attended  this  conference  have 
the  hard  scientific  evidence  that  we  have  today? 

Dr.  Nahas.  None  at  all.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  conference  had  to 
be  prolonged  because  some  of  the  officials  from  the  west  who  attended 
the  conference  asked  the  Egyptian  delegate  to  present  them  with 
hard  facts  indicating  that  marihuana  was  harmful  and  he  could  not 
find  any. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  short,  their  vote  was  based  primarily  on  these 
centuries  of  empirical  observations  to  which  you  referred  earlier? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct. 


107 

Mr.  Martin.  You  do  not  feel  they  were  wrong  in  voting  as  they 
did,  despite  the  lack  of  hard  scientific  evidence? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  If  the  United  States  ever  legalized  marihuana,  what 
is  your  judgment  of  the  effect  this  would  have  in  the  United  States 
and  internationally  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  it  is  difficult  to  predict  what  would  happen.  I 
think  that  Dr.  Bejerot  will  tomorrow  discuss  this  problem  and  he 
is  pretty  well  qualified  for  it. 

I  can  just  convey  to  you  a  feeling,  impressions  and  opinions  of 
the  Public  Health  officials  in  the  North  African  countries  I  visited. 
These  public  officials  are  convinced  that  marihuana  usage  is  harm- 
ful to  their  people  and  to  the  society,  to  the  social  structure  in  which 
they  live.  They  want  the  help  of  the  United  States  to  give  them 
funds  in  order  to  produce  substitute  cash  crops  instead  of  marihuana, 
which  constitutes  the  only  cash  crop  in  some  areas  of  Morocco.  So 
when  you  inform  these  officials  that  there  is  a  probability  or  possi- 
bility that  marihuana  might  be  legalized  in  the  United  States,  and 
you  say  that  it  could  be  made  commercially  available,  they  look  at 
you  with  great  incredulity. 

Mr.  Martin.  A  final  question.  Has  your  research  been  funded  by 
any  Government  agency  or  is  it  privately  funded? 

Dr.  Nahas.  It  is  privately  funded.1 

Mr.  Martin.  You  have  obtained  no  Government  funds? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Until  now  I  have  not  obtained  any  Government  funds, 
and  it  is  a  very  expensive  venture. 

Mr.  Martin.  Did  you  apply  for  Government  funds? 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  did. 

Mr.  Martin.  Your  application  was  apparently  rejected? 

Dr.  Nahas.  But  it  is  being  now  reconsidered. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you. 

Dr.  Nahas.  It  was  rejected,  yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  When  did  vou  first  apply  for  Government  funds, 
Doctor? 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  first  applied  last  October  when  I  had  assembled  a 
body  of  knowledge  sufficient  to  indicate  that  there  was  a  certain  area 
in  my  research  where  interesting  and  fruitful  information  could  be 
found. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  this  application  is  still  pending? 

Dr.  Nahas.  We  are  reapplying. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  have  two  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Doctor,  at  the  conclusion  of  your  statement  you  said  that  your 
observations  taken  in  the  general  context  of  the  damaging  effect  of 
marihuana  on  the  DNA  of  dividing  cells  are  indicative  that  long- 
term  marihuana  usage  by  a  significant  fraction  of  the  American 
population  would  constitute  a  major  public  health  problem. 

Would  you  tell  us  what  you  consider  to  be  a  significant  fraction? 
5  percent,  10  percent,  20  percent? 


1  Mostly  from  a  gift  from  Mr.  Henri  G.  Doll  and  one  from  the  Phillipe  Foundation. 


108 

Dr.  Nahas.  No,  I  said  that  it  would  be,  it  might  be  a  small  per- 
centage. I  think  that  in  a  population  at  large  there  is  only  a  relatively 
small  percentage,  let  us  say,  to  be  kind,  12  percent,  which  is  active, 
creative,  and  which  is  responsible  for  much  of  the  creativity  in  the 
society.  If  just  a  small  percentage  of  this  12  percent,  let  us  say, 
2  or  3  percent  falls  off  this  would  create  a  very  serious  problem 
already. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Well  now,  when  you  use  a  general  figure  like  "sig- 
nificant percentage"  you  are  talking  about  a  percentage  of  the  whole 
population,  not  a  percentage  of  some  elite  group,  are  you  not? 

Dr.  Nahas.  That  is  correct,  But  I  am 

Mr.  Sourwine.  What  percentage  of  the  whole  population  consti- 
tutes a  significant  fraction  of  the  population,  in  your  opinion? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  a  fraction  which  is  statistically  significant,  so 
this  may  not  be  very  high,  I  would  say  it  is  5  or  10  percent. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Well,  how  many,  what  percentage  of  the  American 
population  are  now  using  marihuana  ? 

Dr.  Nahas.  The  figures  are,  I  think,  between  10  and  15  percent, 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Then,  we  are  now  in  a  situation  in  which  mari- 
huana constitutes  a  maior  public  health  problem,  is  that  right? 

Dr.  Nahas.  I  think  it  does;  well,  this    is  my  personal  opinion. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  all  I  am  asking  for. 

Dr.  Nahas.  If  marihuana  will  continue  to  be  consumed  in  the 
United  States  at  the  rate  at  which  it  was  consumed  in  1973  on  the 
basis  of  the  figures  which  were  given  to  us,  I  think  that  in  10  years 
it  will  be  a  major  public  health  problem,  yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  are  a  very  careful  man  in  your  statements,  sir, 
which  I  am  sure  is  the  proper  scientific  attitude,  and  I  mean  no 
offense  by  this  question.  You  have  told  us  that  in  order  to  have 
appropriate  and  normal  resistance  to  disease,  lymphocytes  must 
divide  quite  rapidly  in  case  of  an  invasion.  You  have  told  us  that  the 
use  of  marihuana  inhibits  this  division  by  approximately  50  percent 
through  the  inhibition  of  the  production  of  the  deoxyribonucleic  acid, 
am  I  correct  so  far? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Then,  you  declined  to  make  a  judgment  that  this 
meant  that  the  use  of  marihuana  reduced  the  resistance  of  the  user  to 
disease,  Is  that  not  a  little  bit  like  saying  if  you  introduce  into  the 
blood  a  noncoagulating  factor  to  the  extent  that  the  blood  will  seep 
through  the  tissues,  there  is  still  no  assurance  that  the  man  is  going 
to  bleed? 

Dr.  Nahas.  Well,  I  have  to  keep  toeing  the  scientific  line  which  says 
that  as  long  as  there  is  no  evidence  you  cannot  conclude. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  All  right,  sir,  I  have  no  more  questions. 

Senator  Gurnet.  It  is  my  understanding,  just  to  complete  the  last 
line  of  questioning,  that  there  have  not  been  that,  there  has  not  been 
that  much  experimentation  to  actually  prove  that  marihuana,  the  use 
of  marihuana  prevents  resistance  to  certain  diseases  because  it  has  not 
been  experimented,  is  that  not  what  you  are  saying? 

Dr.  Nahas.  There  have  not  been  enough  actual  observations.  But 
if  I  were  to  bet  personally,  I  would  certainly  bet  that  the  incidence 
of  disease  in  chronic  marihuana  smokers  would  be  much  greater  than 
in  those  who  do  not  smoke  marihuana.  I  would  make  that  hypothesis, 
I  would  bet  on  it. 


109 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

I  understand  our  next  witness  is  Dr.  Morishima.  Doctor,  will  you 
identify  yourself  for  the  record,  please? 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  AKIRA  MORISHIMA,  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Dr.  Morishima.  I  am  an  associate  professor  of  the  department  of 
pediatrics  of  the  College  of  Physicians  and  Surgeons  at  Columbia 
University.  I  am  the  chief  of  the  division  of  pediatric  endocrine 
service  at  Babies  Hospital. 

Senator  Gtjrxet.  Perhaps  if  you  do  not  mind,  I  could  ask  some 
questions  which  will  start  us  in  at  the  beginning  and  establish  your 
qualifications,  Doctor. 

Dr.  Morishima.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurxey.  You  were  born  in  Tokyo  in  1930  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Gurxey.  You  are  currently  a  citizen  of  the  U.S.  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  Yes,  I  am. 

Senator  Gurxey.  And  you  received  your  medical  degree  from  the 
School  of  Medicine,  Keio  University  in  Tokyo  in  1954  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Gurxey.  And  you  subsequently  received  a  Ph.  D.  in  medi- 
cine from  Keio  University  for  your  work  in  the  field  of  cytogenetics. 

Dr.  Morishima.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurxey.  How  would  you  define  cytogenetics? 

Dr.  Morishima.  It  is  a  discipline  in  which  genetics  of  cells  are 
studied. 

Senator  Gurxey.  And  you  have  been  associated  with  Columbia 
University  from  1956  to  the  present  time — apart  from  a  2-year  stint, 
from  1966  to  1968  as  assistant  professor  of  pediatrics  at  the  Univer- 
sity of  California  in  San  Francisco  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Gurxey.  And  you  have  served  as  pediatrician  or  pediatric 
consultant  at  a  number  of  major  New  York  hospitals? 

Dr.  Morishima.  Yes,  I  do. 

Senator  Gurxey.  And  you  have  for  several  years  been  a  member  of 
the  endocrine  disease  advisory  committee  of  the  New  York  City 
Department  of  Health?. 

Dr.  Morishima.  Yes,  I  am. 

Senator  Gurxey.  And  you  are  the  author  or  coauthor  of  32  scien- 
tific papers,  with  a  heavy  emphasis  in  the  field  of  cytogenetic 
research  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Senator  Gurxey.  Is  it  accurate  to  say  you  are  basically  a  geneticist? 

Dr.  Morishima.  Yes,  who  specializes  in  the  subdivision  of  cell 
genetics,  if  you  will. 

Senator  Gurxey.  Very  well.  Will  you  proceed  with  your  statement, 
Doctor? 

Dr.  Morishima.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  honored  to  be  invited  to 
testify  as  a  scientific  witness  before  this  distinguished  committee. 

During  the  past  few  years,  I  have  been  examining  the  cytogenetic 
changes  in  heroin  addicts.  My  interest  in  cannabis  originally  stemmed 
from  this  study.  The  vast  majority  of  heroin  addicts  we  were  able 


33-371   O  -  74  -  9 


110 

to  study  smoked  marihuana,  at  least  on  occasions,  and  therefore  it 
became  important  to  examine  separately  the  effects  of  marihuana 
smoking.  It  is  of  interest  that  the  preliminary  observation  on  mari- 
huana smokers  suggests  that  some  cytogenetic  changes  in  these 
subjects  are  dissimilar  to  those  found  in  heroin  addicts. 

We  obtained  lymphocytes  from  peripheral  blood  of  heavy  mari- 
huana smokers — at  least  once  per  week  for  minimum  of  1  year — and 
cultured  the  cells  in  vitro  for  72  hours,  stimulated  by  phytohemag- 
glutinin,  PHA.  At  the  end  of  this  culture  period,  cells  were  exposed 
to  colchicine  and  a  hypotonic  solution,  then,  were  fixed,  all  in  a 
rigidly  prescribed  manner.  This  method  is  a  standard  technique  used 
for  examination  of  human  chromosomes,  and  is  commonly  employed 
in  diagnosis  of  diseases  caused  by  chromosomal  aberrations.  The 
method  is  very  similar  to  that  used  for  detection  of  chromosomal 
breakages  in  marihuana  smokers  by  Dr.  Stenchever l  and  in  users  of 
lysergic  acid  diethylamide,  LSD,  by  Dr.  Cohen8  and  his  associates 
in  1967. 

When  the  specimens  of  three  marihuana  smokers  were  compared 
with  those  of  age  and  sex  matched  nonsmokers,  the  mitotic  index,  or 
the  proportion  of  those  cells  in  process  of  cell  division,  was  noted  to 
be  only  2.3  percent  in  marihuana  users,  compared  with  5.9  percent  for 
the  controls.  Although  the  significance  of  this  difference  was  not  clear 
due  to  the  small  number  of  subjects  studied,  it  suggested  that  activity 
of  cell  division  may  be  decreased  in  marihuana  smokers. 

However,  in  the  marihuana  samples,  we  noted  that  a  large  propor- 
tion of  metaphase  nuclei  contained  a  significantly  decreased  number 
of  chromosomes  than  the  normal  human  complement  of  46  chromo- 
somes. Metaphase  is  a  brief  stage  of  cell  division  during  which  each 
chromosome  is  clearly  visible. 

[The  table  follows :] 

MITOTIC  INDEX 


Number  of 
subjects 

Mitotic 

Index 

(percent) 

Number  of 

cells 

examined 

Marihuana  smokers 3 

2.37 

5.94 

60, 173 

Controls - 3 

59,000 

LABELED  CELLS  BY  USE  OF  W-THYMIDINE  DURING  THE  50  HOURS  OF  CULTURE 

Number  of 
subjects 

Labeled 

cells  i 

(percent) 

Total  cells 
examined 

Marihuana  smokers - - ---                    3 

10.44 
29.81 

1.245 

1.631 

i  More  than  10  grains  per  cell. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  prepared  several  figures.  I  should  like  to 
refer  to  Exhibit  1. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  These  will  all  be  admitted  in  the  record. 


1  Stenchever    M.  A. ;  Kunysz,  T.  J.,  and  Allen,  M.  A.  "Chromosome  Breakage  In  Users 
of   Marihuana."    Am.    J.   Obs.    Gyn.,    118 :    106,    1974. 

2  Cohen,   M.    M. ;    Marinello,    M.    J.,   and   Back,    N.    "Chromosomal    Damage    in    Human 
Leukocytes   Induced   by   Lysergic   Acid   Diethylamide."    Science,    155 :    1417,    1967. 


Ill 


*  t         *^* 


\ii 


*  >a% 


112 

Dr.  Morishima.  In  exhibit  1  a  normal  metaphase  cell  with  46 
chromosomes  is  shown  in  the  left  upper  corner.  Cells  with  38,  24,  11, 
and  8  chromosomes,  respectively,  are  shown  in  the  remainder  of  this 
figure. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  What  is  the  significance  of  a  cell  with  34  or  11  or  8 
chromosomes  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  These  are  abnormal  cells  which  are  seen  only  in  a 
very  small  percentage  among  the  normal  controls. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  Will  they  take  part  in  reproduction  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  They  probably  will,  at  least  for  one  or  two  cell 
generations  but  after  that  I  have  no  evidence  to  support  whether  or 
not  they  can  or  cannot. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  Thank  you. 

Dr.  Morishima.  In  exhibit  2,  I  have  summarized  the  study. 

In  marihuana  smokers,  30.6  percent  of  the  cells  examined  had  5  to  30 
chromosomes,  whereas  only  7  percent  of  cells  were  found  to  have  such 
a  chromosomal  complement  in  the  control  group.  The  small  percent- 
age of  abnormal  cells  in  normal  individuals  is  thought  to  arise  during 
the  process  of  preparing  the  slides,  and  is  considered  a  technical 
artifact.  However,  in  marihuana  smokers,  the  incidence  of  metaphase 
cells  missing  a  large  number  of  chromosomes  was  over  fourfold 
greater  than  that  in  controls.  This  incidence  was  so  high  that  I  have 
not  encountered  a  comparable  phenomenon  m  any  other  clinical 
situations  in  15  years  of  experience  in  cytogenetics.  Judging  from 
the  microscopic  findings,  there  were  reasons  to  believe  that  this 
observation  could  not  be  explained  merely  on  the  basis  of  technically 
induced  artifacts.  Although  this  study  included  only  a  few  patients, 
and  is  still  incomplete  due  to  lack  of  funds,  I  believe  that  the  data 
are  sufficient  to  suggest  that  marihuana  smoking  results  in  severe 

EXHIBIT  2 


PERCENTAGE 

OF    METAPHASES 

WITH   VARYING     NUMBER    OF    CHROMOSOMES 

NUMBER   OF    CHROMOSOMES 

1  "4 

5-10                      1  1-20 

21-30                 over    30 

3.17 

3.17                         3.17 

4.76 

85.71 

5.17 

3.02                       2.26 

2.64 

86.88 

CONTROL 

0.00 

1  00                        0  00 

1  00 

9800 

mean 

2.78 

2.40                        181 

\ 

280 

/ 

90.20 

V 
7.01 

METAPHASES    COUNTED 

954 

7.57 

8.33                       9.84 

2  1.96 

5227 

2.1  1 

7.74                      7.74 

25.35 

5  7.04 

MARIHUANA 
SMOKERS 

5.44 

4.26                        1 .47 

5.29 

83.52 

mtan 

5.04 

6.78                       6.35 

\ 

17.53 

/ 

64.28 

V 
30.66 

METAPHASES    COUNTED 

956 

113 

disruption  of  the  normal  process  by  which  chromosomes  segregate 
into  succeeding  generations  of  cells,  at  least  when  cultured  in  vitro. 

Dr.  Nahas  has  already  mentioned  the  decreased  ability  of  lympho- 
cytes obtained  from  marihuana  smokers  to  synthesize  DNA  in  culture. 
In  this  regard,  I  should  like  to  mention  a  study  which  confirmed  his 
observation.  Tritiated  thymidine,  which  is  a  radioactive  precursor  of 
DNA,  was  added  to  the  culture  medium  of  lymphocytes  for  50  hours 
in  this  experiment.  After  washing  the  cells  to  remove  any  radioactive 
thymidine  not  already  incorporated  into  the  cells,  the  specimens  were 
placed  on  slides.  Photographic  films  were  then  placed  in  contact  with 
the  cells  so  that  the  incorporated  radioactivity  could  be  observed  by 
use  of  a  microscope — autoradiograph.  In  marihuana  smokers  only 
10.4  percent  of  all  cells  were  found  to  have  incorporated  the  tritiated 
thymidine,  in  contrast  to  29.8  percent  for  the  nonsmokers.  This  ob- 
servation suggests  that  a  larger  proportion  of  lymphocytes  of  mari- 
huana smokers  is  incapable  of  cellular  reproduction  in  vitro.1 

It  is  of  interest  that  the  apparent  decrease  in  mitotic  index  and  di- 
minished DNA  synthesis  of  the  lympocytes  of  marihuana  users  is 
very  different  from  the  cytogenetic  findings  obtained  in  heroin 
addicts. 

As  summarized  in  the  third  exhibit,  the  mean  mitotic  index  of 
lymphocytes  obtained  from  heroin  addicts  was  11.8  percent,  signifi- 
cantly greater  than  that  of  controls,  with  a  mean  index  of  6.6  percent. 
Since  most  of  the  addicts  were  also  users  of  marihuana,  it  may  be 
speculated  that  their  mitotic  index  would  have  been  even  greater  if 
they  had  not  smoked  marihuana. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  I  wonder,  so  we  can  understand  as  laymen  now 
perhaps  you  had  better  say  for  the  record,  Doctor,  what  do  you  mean 
by  in  vitro  and  what  do  you  mean  by  in  vivo  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  Mr.  Chairman,  in  vitro  here  I  refer  to  in-test-tube 
situation.  In  vivo,  I  mean,  in  life. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Life. 

Dr.  Morishima.  May  I  proceed  ? 

Senator  Gurnet.  Yes. 

Dr.  Morishima.  Since  lymphocytes  constitute  an  essential  compo- 
nent of  cellular  immunity  and  chromosomes  are  basic  units  of  in- 
heritance at  the  cellular  level,  it  seems  logical  to  anticipate  potential 
danger  in  immune  defense  system,  development  of  cancer,  germ  cell 
production,  genetic  mutation  and  birth  defects.  Unfortunately,  little 
is  known  of  the  effects  of  cannabis  in  these  areas.  Many  of  these  can 
be  examined  systematically  and  rapidly  utilizing  the  presently  avail- 
able technology.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  prudent  to  keep  in  mind 
possibilities  of  long-term  effects  which  can  be  studied  only  by  long- 
range  epidemiological  investigations.  It  was  only  2  years  ago  that 
diethylstilbesterol,  once  a  commonly  prescribed  female  hormone,  was 
implicated  in  vaginal  cancer  of  female  offspring  of  mothers  who  were 
treated  with  this  agent  some  15  to  20  years  before. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

In  exhibit  4,  the  results  of  the  in  vitro  study  is  shown. 

When  lymphocytes  obtained  from  11  normal  subjects  were  exposed 
to  morphine  sulfate  of  various  concentrations  in  culture,  a  complete 

1  Nahas,  G.  G. ;  Suciu-Foca,  N. ;  Armand,  J.  P.  and  Morishima,  A.  "Inhibition  of 
Cellular  Mediated   Immunity   in   Marihuana    Smokers."   Science    183 :    419,    1974. 


114 


inhibition  of  DNA  synthesis  occurred  at  1.32  X10"1  mM.  This  concen- 
tration is  estimated  to  be  about  100  times  the  concentration  found  in 
the  blood  of  fatalities  from  acute  overdoes  of  morphine.  At  concen- 
tration of  1.32  X10~7  mM  an  enhancement  of  DNA  synthesis  was  ob- 
served. This  concentration  is  approximately  1/1000  of  the  blood  con- 
centration of  fatalities.  Thus,  in  contrast  to  cannabis,  derivatives  of 
opium  alkaloids  appear  to  stimulate  DNA  synthesis  and  cell  division 
of  lymphocytes  in  culture  at  an  appropriate  concentration.1 

Considering  the  various  studies  of  Drs.  Stenchever,  Leuchten- 
berger  2  and  Nahas  together  with  the  data  presented,  I  believe  that 
we  can  conclude  that  there  is  an  increasing  body  of  evidences  to  sug- 
gest that  cannabis  can  affect  the  process  of  cell  multiplication  and 
induce  profound  cytogenetic  changes.  While  these  in  vitro  studies  do 
not  directly  indicate  adverse  effects  in  vivo,  they  do  implicate  poten- 
tial health  hazards. 


EXHIBIT  3 

- 

i 

1 

MITOTIC    INDICES     IN   CULTURED 

LYMPOCYTES  OF 

HEROIN   ADDICTS 

CONTROLS 

ADDICTS 

i 
1 

SUBJECT 

TOTAL    CELLS 

MITOTIC 

SUBJECT 

TOTAL  CELLS 

MITOTIC 

EXAMINED 

INDEX  (%) 

EXAMINED 

INDEX  (%) 

AM. 

2400 

13.07 

AH. 

2400 

20.25  '" 

• 

1 

VS 

2563 

3.45 

L.D. 

21  14 

1 6.65       '"- 

A.M. 

2338 

4.40 

E.R. 

3665 

9.95 

S.B. 

2788 

6.92 

W.J. 

9329 

5.46 

MX. 

1  2,770 

7.78 

ST. 

7398 

8i0 

ScB- 

1 0,000 

4.86 

ca 

8600 

1 7.83 

S.D. 

1  0,000 

5.66 

N.S. 

9000 

4.62 

AM 

8991 

8.26 

SC. 

8486 

10.74 

W.H. 

7480 

4.90 
6.39i  0.970B.E-)% 

MP. 

8493 

12.68 

1 1.82  t  I.8271SZ J% 
P-«0.05 

1  Milstein,  M.  ;  Morishima.  A. ;  Cohen,  M.  I.  and  Litt,  I.  F.  Effects  of  Opium  Alka- 
loids on  Mitosis  and  DNA   Synthesis.   Ped.   Res.     8:    118,    1974    (Abstract). 

3  Luctenberger,  C.  :  Leuchtenberger,  R.  and  Schneider,  A.  Effects  of  Marihuana  and 
Tobacco  Smoker  on  Human   Lung  Physiology.  Nature,   241  :    137,    1973. 


115 


EFFECT    OF   MORPHINE    SULFATE    ON   T   CELLS    OF   NORMAL  SUBJECTS 


O        T- 


I.32XIO-'     1.32X10-3    I32XI0-*    I.32XI0-6     I.32X  1 0~6    I32XI0-7     I.32XI0-8    I.32X  1 0"9 


Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Doctor.  I  guess  I  should  have  per- 
haps asked  each  of  the  panelists  about  this  but  let  me  direct  a  ques- 
tion to  you.  I  take  it,  really,  there  has  not  been  that  much  study  on 
the  effects  of  marihuana,  is  that  true? 

Dr.  Morishima.  Not  in  the  chromosomal  level,  as  far  as  I  know. 
There  is  Dr.  Stenchever's  work,  the  one  which  came  out  from  the 
Jamaica  study  and  the  one  I  presented  to  you  just  about  summarize 
the  current  knowledge. 

Senator  Gukney.  Is  it  true — and  I  am  asking  this  question  also  of 
the  other  panel  members  in  the  areas  they  have  been  investigating- — 
there  really  has  not  been  much  research  done  on  marihuana  and  its 
effects? 

For  the  record,  I  will  say  each  of  the  panelists  shook  their  heads 
in  the  affirmative — no,  there  has  not  been  that  much  research  done. 

Mr.  Counsel,  do  you  have  any  questions  ? 

Mr.  Martin.  Just  a  few  questions.  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Mori- 
shima to  respond  to  the  questions  as  briefly  as  possible  in  the  interest 
of  time,  and  I  would  like  to  ask  the  two  remaining  witnesses  when 
they  testify  if  they  will  perhaps  abbreviate  their  prepared  remarks 
somewhat,  and  also  to  make  their  replies  to  questions  as  brief  as  pos- 
sible so  that  we  can  wind  up  the  hearing  this  afternoon. 

Dr.  Morishima,  if  I  understood  you  correctly,  what  brought  you 
together  with  Dr.  Nahas  and  his  research  on  marihuana,  in  which  you 


116 

joined  him,  was  your  earlier  studies  on  the  cytogenetic  effects  of 
heroin  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  to  amplify  on  your  closing 
statement  in  which  you  mention  the  effect  of  diethystilbesterol.  You 
said,  if  I  understood  you,  to  be  prudent  we  must  keep  in  mind  the 
possibilities  about  the  long-term  effects — about  which  we  will  only 
learn  from  long-range  investigations  in  the  future.  Do  you  mean  that 
the  effects  may  not  be  noticeable  in  this  generation  or  perhaps  for 
another  generation  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  That  is  precisely  what  I  mean  in  this  statement, 
sir.  For  example,  when  diethystilbesterol  was  used  during  the  preg- 
nancy of  the  mother  who  was  carrying  the  female  offspring,  the  effect 
was  not  seen  in  the  mother  at  all.  She  never  expressed  adverse  effect, 
and  it  was  only  when  the  female  offspring  reached  beyond  the  puberal 
age,  cancer  of  the  vagina  was  discovered  and  diethystilbesterol  was 
then  implicated  in  production  of  this  cancer.  So  I  believe  that  similar 
kinds  of  situations  can  occur  in  the  marihuana  usage.  Particularly  I 
am  concerned  with  the  fact  that  marihuana  seems  to  accumulate  in 
the  gonads,  that  is,  ovaries  and  the  testicular  tissue.  And  I  am  par- 
ticularly concerned  about  the  ovaries  rather  than  the  sperms  because 
the  ovaries  contain  a  finite  number  of  eggs  at  the  time  of  female 
birth.  They  do  not  increase,  they  die  progressively.  They  are  endowed 
with  a  definite  number  of  eggs  which  cannot  be  reproduced.  So  if  a 
damage  is  done  one  can  shed  those  damaged  cells  year  after  year 
after  puberty. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  said  that  your  personal  research  in  other  areas 
tended  to  supplement  and  confirm  the  research  which  you  have  con- 
ducted jointly  with  Dr.  Nahas.  Who  funded  this  personal  research  to 
which  you  referred  ?  Were  you  able  to  find  Government  support  for 
your  work,  or  foundation  support,  or  private  support? 

Dr.  Morishima.  I  am  totally  unfunded  in  terms  of  marihuana  re- 
search at  the  moment.  However,  I  do  have  a  contract  with  the  city  of 
New  York  to  investigate  cytogenic  changes  in  heroin  addicts  and, 
therefore,  I  am  allowed  under  the  agreement  to  undertake  certain 
pilot  studies  which  are  relevant  to  the  heroin  addiction. 

Mr.  Martin.  Have  you  applied — submitted  an  application — for  re- 
search support? 

Dr.  Morishima.  I  applied  to  NIH  in  conjunction  with  Dr.  Nahas. 
Mr.  Martin.  And  it  was  this  application  which  was  turned  down 
and  is  apparently  now  being  considered? 
Dr.  Nahas.  Resubmitted. 

Mr.  Martin.  Resubmitted.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  have  no  further 
questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Just  one,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Dr.  Morishima,  in  telling  us  about  the  effect  of  heroin  and  other 
opium  alkaloid  derivatives  upon  DNA  synthesis  preceding  cell  divi- 
sion, you  brought  into  my  mind  this  understanding  and  I  want  to  ask 
you  if  it  is  correct.  Heroin  and  marihuana  differ  greatly,  perhaps 
most  greatly  in  the  fact  that  heroin  and  other  opium  alkaloid  deriva- 
tives can  totally  inhibit  the  cell  division — a  bad  effect — in  heavy  con- 
centrations but  may  actually  increase  it  or  stimulate  it — a  good  effect — 


117 

in  sufficiently  small  concentrations,  whereas  there  is  no  quantity  of 
marihuana  that  does  any  good,  all  of  it  does  harm  ? 

Dr.  Morishima.  Counsel,  I  do  not  want  to  imply  increased  DNA 
synthesis,  per  se,  is  good.  If  one  takes  that  position  we  must  glorify 
leukemia  as  a  good  disease  and,  therefore,  being  variations  from  the 
normality  to  me  is  bad  either  way.  All  I  am  saying  is  that  with  heroin 
there  is  an  increase  in  DNA  synthesis,  and  in  marihuana  there  is  a 
decrease.  In  test  tube  situation,  at  least,  if  you  give  enough  you  can 
kill  off  the  cells  with  the  morphine  sulfate,  which  is  not  a  surprise. 
You  can  kill  cells  with  almost  anything ;  if  you  give  high  enough  con- 
centration, sugar  will  do  it,  sir. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  thank  you.  No  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurney.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Morishima. 

Our  next  witness  is  Dr.  Robert  Kolodny. 

Dr.  Kolodny,  would  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record? 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  ROBERT  KOLODNY,  REPRODUCTIVE  BIOLOGY 
RESEARCH  FOUNDATION,  ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 

Dr.  Kolodny.  I  am  Dr.  Robert  C.  Kolodny  of  the  Reproductive 
Biology  Research  Foundation  in  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

Senator  Gurney.  Let  me  ask  just  a  few  questions  on  your  qualifi- 
cations, Doctor.  I  understand  you  received  your  medical  degree  in 
1969  from  the  Washington  University  School  of  Medicine  in  St. 
Louis  ? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurney.  And  you  served,  you  have  served  since  1973,  as 
director  of  the  endocrine  research  section  of  the  Reproductive  Biology 
Research  Foundation  in  St.  Louis? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurney.  And  you  have  also  served  since  last  year  as  in- 
structor in  the  department  of  medicine  of  the  Washington  University 
School  of  Medicine? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurney.  You  are  a  captain  in  the  U.S.  Army  Medical 
Corps  Reserve? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurney.  And  you  are  the  author  of  13  scientific  papers? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  Gurney.  Will  you  proceed  with  your  statement  ? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  Yes. 

Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  indeed  an  honor  to  testify  as  a  scientific  wit- 
ness before  this  committee  in  an  area  of  current  controversy.  I  have 
been  asked  to  describe  recent  research  that  my  colleagues  and  I  have 
done  on  the  physical  effects  of  cannabis  use.  I  want  to  stress  that  Dr. 
Gelson  Toro,  a  biochemist  and  director  of  our  laboratories,  and  Dr. 
William  H.  Masters,  the  director  of  the  Reproductive  Biology  Re- 
search Foundation,  have  been  instrumental  in  the  planning,  perform- 
ance, and  analysis  of  these  studies.  My  testimony  today  reflects  the 
views  of  these  eminent  scientists,  in  addition  to  my  own  thinking.  I 
would  also  like  to  acknowledge  the  invaluable  assistance  of  Mr.  Rob- 
ert M.  Kolodner,  a  fourth-year  medical  student  from  Yale  Univer- 
sity, who  participated  in  the  first  phase  of  our  investigations. 


118 

Kesearch  in  medicine  proceeds  along  certain  basic  lines  of  endeavor 
when  any  drug  is  being  considered.  A  thorough  understanding  of 
drug  effects  is  initially  obtained  through  animal  experimentation, 
with  particular  attention  to  identifying  and  devising  means  to  mini- 
mize toxic  effects  of  the  compound  being  tested.  The  world  has 
learned,  through  unfortunate  experience,  the  price  of  inadequate 
studies  in  this  phase,  specifically  with  regard  to  drug  effects  in  preg- 
nancy. Animal  safety  is  not  a  panacea  for  human  usage,  however, 
since  the  consequences  of  use  of  any  drug  by  the  human  may  be 
considerably  different  from  the  animal  model. 

Continuing  to  speak  in  broad  terms,  human  drug  studies  are  meth- 
odologically limited  in  many  ways.  Ethical  considerations  must  be 
given  the  highest  possible  priority  by  the  scientist;  therefore,  exper- 
imental plans  that  might  be  ideal  from  a  scientific  viewpoint— that 
is  to  say,  plans  that  may  allow  the  fullest  answer  of  the  particular 
question  being  examined — must  often  be  discarded  in  favor  of  a  less 
precise  method.  Time  limitations  are  also  relevant  to  this  discussion, 
because  the  question  of  safety  of  drug  use — and  I  emphasize  that  I 
am  speaking  of  any  drug,  including  aspirin — cannot  accurately  and 
fully  be  assessed  for  many  decades,  particularly  when  we  consider 
the  reproductive  consequences  a  drug  may  have.  In  addition  to  the 
above,  we  must  realize  that  a  multiplicity  of  factors  may  influence  the 
very  areas  we  wish  to  evaluate — thus,  studies  of  aspirin's  effects  on 
weight  gain  would  be  influenced  by  intercurrent  illness,  other  drugs 
employed — both  for  their  intrinsic  effects  and  for  how  they  might 
interact  with  aspirin — diet,  social  pressures,  and  physical  activity,  to 
name  just  a  few. 

For  a  valid  scientific  conclusion  about  drug  effects,  we  must  ques- 
tion the  design  of  an  evaluating  study,  particularly  in  light  of  how 
well  controlled  the  study  was ;  that  is  to  say,  how  carefully  have  the 
investigators  worked  to  insure  that  what  they  are  observing  are  ac- 
tual effects  of  the  drug  in  question,  and  not  effects  attributable  to 
random  variation  or  constant  bias  from  a  known  or  unknown  source. 

Research  in  cannabis  effects  on  humans  has  not  always  been  per- 
formed or  presented  with  objectivity.  Many  studies  have  been  severely 
limited  by  indiscriminately  including  multiple  drug  users,  thus  fre- 
quently raising  more  questions  than  providing  useful  information.  As 
an  example  of  such  research,  I  would  like  to  comment  briefly  on  the 
study  entitled  "Cerebral  Atrophy  in  Young  Cannabis  Smokers,"  that 
was  introduced  in  testimony  before  this  committee  on  September  18, 
1972.  In  the  10  cases  reported,  all  10  men  had  used  LSD — many  of 
them  over  20  times  as — well  as  cannabis,  and  8  of  the  10  had  used 
amphetamines.  One  subject  had  a  previous  history  of  convulsions,  four 
had  significant  head  injuries,  and  a  number  had  used  sedatives,  bar- 
biturates, heroin,  or  morphine.  On  the  basis  of  these  facts,  speculative 
connection  between  cannabis  use  and  brain  damage  is  highly  suspect. 
Unfortunately,  this  type  of  report  is  typical  of  much  of  the  research 
done  in  this  field. 

Before  discussing  specifically  the  effect  of  cannabis  use  on  humans, 
I  would  like  to  state  that  my  colleagues  and  I  feel  that,  in  areas  of 
major  significance,  the  physical  effects  of  cannabis  use  are  not  well 
documented  by  animal  studies.  To  the  best  of  our  knowledge,  there 


119 

are  no  reports  on  the  effects  of  cannabis  on  spermatogenesis  in  pri- 
mates or  even  in  mammals 

Mr.  Martin.  Spermatogenesis  is  the  process  of  producing  sperm? 

Dr.  Kolodxt.  This  is  correct.  There  are  no  reports  in  the  literature 
describing  changes,  if  any,  in  reproductive  hormones  in  animals  given 
cannabis  chronically  or  acutely;  and  the  hormonal  studies  reported 
to  date  represent,  at  best,  incomplete  and,  at  worst,  irresponsible  sci- 
entific methodology.  In  as  important  areas  as  impairment  of  fertility 
or  possible  teratogenicity — production  of  physical  defects  in  the  de- 
veloping embryo — animal  experimentation  has  proceeded  slowly  and 
left  important  questions  unanswered. 

A  brief  examination  of  the  background  literature  may  be  informa- 
tive. In  1965,  Miras  reported  that  female  rats  maintained  on  a  diet 
containing  0.2  percent  marihuana  extract  for  several  months  showed 
a  significant  reduction  in  fertility  and  a  reduced  growth  rate.  Tera- 
togenicity was  not  observed.  Persaud  and  Ellington,  used  cannabis 
resin  at  a  dosage  of  16  milligrams  per  kilogram  of  body  weight  in- 
jected into  pregnant  rats  on  days  1-6  of  gestation,  caused  complete 
fetal  resorption;  in  a  subsequent  report,  dosage  levels  of  4.2  milli- 
grams per  kilogram  of  body  weight  on  days  1-6  of  gestation  were 
shown  to  have  a  variety  of  teratogenic  effects.  These  effects  included 
syndactyly — webbing  between  the  digits — in  72  percent  of  the  ani- 
mals, encephalocele — hernia  of  the  brain — in  57  percent,  phocomelia — 
abnormal  development  of  the  limbs,  with  the  "seal-flipper"  appear- 
ance also  encountered  with  thalidomide — in  15  percent,  complete  ab- 
sence of  a  limb  or  limbs  in  2  percent,  and  protrusion  of  the  bowels 
from  the  abdomen  in  30  percent.  Similar  work  was  then  repeated  by 
Greber  and  Schramm  in  1969,  with  litters  from  female  hamsters 
receiving  marihuana  described  with  the  following  abnormalities: 
"fetuses  with  head,  spinal,  and  whole  body  edema,  phocomelia,  om- 
phalocele, spina  bifida,  exancephaly,  multiple  malformations,  and 
myelocele." 

Pace,  Davis,  and  Borgen  reported  impaired  fertility  but  not  abso- 
lute sterility  in  female  rats  given  either  delta-9  or  delta-8  tetrahydro- 
cannabinol by  injection — 20  or  40  milligrams  per  kilogram  of  body 
weight — on  alternate  days  for  a  30-day  period.  Harbison  and  Man- 
tilla-Plata showed  that  delta-9  tetrahydrocannabinol  was  transferred 
across  the  placenta  and  was  embryo  or  fetocidal  in  mice,  but  no  ob- 
servation of  fertility  was  possible  since  drug  administration  began 
after  conception. 

It  must  be  stressed  that  these  animal  studies  cannot  be  accurately 
transferred  to  humans  because  of  obvious  differences  in  the  high  doses 
employed  and  the  mode  of  administration  utilized.  However,  it  is  ap- 
parent that  there  is  a  potential  risk  in  cannabis  use  during  preg- 
nancy, and  that,  at  present,  there  are  no  adequate  studies  of  women 
who  have  used  cannabis  during  pregnancy  with  relation  to  the  health 
of  their  children. 

Reproductive  studies  of  cannabis  effects  in  male  animals  have  been 
far  fewer  in  number.  Merari,  Barak,  and  Playes  reported  that  delta- 
1(2)  tetrahydrocannabinol  caused  deterioration  in  sexual  perform- 
ance in  rats,  which  they  attributed  to  "reduced  sexual  motivation." 
No  histologic  or  endocrine  studies  were  done,  however.  Ling  and  his 


120 

coworkers  administered  delta-1  tetrahydrocannabinol  to  adult  male 
rats  for  4  days,  but  did  not  report  any  alteration  in  gonadal  activity. 
However,  they  did  not  measure  hormone  production  or  sperm  counts 
and  did  not  examine  histologic  section  of  the  testes.  It  is  indeed  dis- 
quieting that  there  are  no  careful,  controlled  studies  of  chronic  or 
acute  cannabis  effects  on  male  reproductive  physiology  in  animal 
species. 

Galen,  approximately  18  centuries  ago,  has  been  cited  as  stating  that 
"Hempe  *  *  *  by  much  use  thereof  *  *  *  dryeth  up  the  natural  seede  of 
procreation"  and  "doth  refraineth  Venereous  desires."  Much  specula- 
tion currently  exists  concerning  cannabis  and  sexuality,  but  system- 
atic controlled  studies  of  this  area  have  been  conspicuously  lacking. 

We  have  recently  published  a  report  in  the  New  England  Journal  of 
Medicine  entitled  "Depression  of  Plasma  Testosterone  Levels  After 
Chronic  Intensive  Marihuana  Use"  that  we  hope  will  be  viewed  as  an 
invitation  to  scientists  across  the  world  to  direct  their  attention  spe- 
cifically to  possible  reproductive  consequences  of  marihuana  use. 

This  report  describes  our  studies  in  a  group  of  20  men  aged  18  to  28 
who  had  each  used  marihuana  at  least  4  days  a  week  for  a  minimum 
of  6  months,  without  use  of  other  drugs  during  that  interval.  In  the  6 
months  before  the  study  began,  these  subjects  averaged  weekly  con- 
sumption of  9.4  joints  of  marihuana,  with  some  subjects  averaging  as 
much  as  18  joints  per  week.  The  overall  duration  of  marihuana  use — 
although  not  at  this  dosage  level — averaged  approximately  Z\Z2  years 
for  the  group.  One  subject  had  used  the  drug  regularly  for  8  years. 
The  duration  of  marihuana  use  at  least  4  days  a  week  in  this  group 
averaged  11.1  months. 

Men  were  chosen  for  this  study,  after  meeting  the  first  criterion  of 
use  of  marihuana  at  least  4  days  a  week  for  a  minimum  period  of  6 
months,  according  to  the  following  criteria :  no  history  of  use  of  any 
drug  by  injection  except  under  a  physician's  care;  no  history  of  in- 
gestion of  LSD  or  other  hallucinogens,  amphetamines,  barbiturates, 
cocaine,  narcotics,  hypnotics,  or  sedatives  in  the  preceding  6  months ; 
no  history  of  using  male  or  female  sex  hormones;  no  history  of  en- 
docrine disease;  no  history  of  hepatitis  or  other  liver  disease;  and 
alcohol  intake  not  more  than  two  ounces  per  day. 

Twenty  healthy  men  who  had  never  used  marihuana  and  who  met 
the  other  criteria  described  above  served  as  a  control  group.  These 
men  were  matched  with  the  test  group  for  age  and  for  cigarette- 
smoking  habits.  The  ages  of  these  men  were  also  18  to  28  years. 

At  this  point  in  my  discussion,  I  would  like  to  emphasize  the  fact 
that  we  did  not  provide  marihuana  for  the  men  we  studied,  nor  did  we 
ask  them  to  continue  their  drug  use  pattern.  It  also  should  be  stated 
that  we  did  not  supervise  their  use  of  marihuana,  and  specifically  that 
they  did  not  engage  in  marihuana  use  in  our  laboratories  or  offices. 

We  investigated  blood  levels  of  a  variety  of  hormones  that  are  im- 
portant in  reproduction.  The  principal  male  sex  hormone,  testosterone, 
was  found  to  be  approximately  44  percent  lower  in  the  group  of  men 
using  marihuana  chronically  and  frequently  than  in  the  group  of  men 
who  had  never  used  this  drug.  This  finding  was  not  uniform  in  all  the 
men  studied,  however,  and  it  appeared  to  be  related  to  the  amount  of 
marihuana  used.  Men  who  averaged  10  or  more  marihuana  "joints" 


121 

per  week  had  significantly  lower  testosterone  levels  than  men  who  used 
fewer  than  10  marihuana  cigarettes  weekly. 

Interestingly,  a  standard  test  which  measures  the  capacity  of  the 
testes  to  produce  the  male  sex  hormone  showed  that  in  all  four  sub- 
jects tested  while  thev  continued  marihuana  use,  normal  responses  were 
found— blood  levels  of  testosterone  rose  from  121  to  269  percent.  This 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  effect  of  marihuana  is  not  directly  on 
the  male  sex  organs,  but  is  at  a  higher  regulatory  center,  which  might 
be  either  the  pituitary  gland  or  the  hypothalamus,  a  part  of  the  brain 
quite  important  in  hormone  regulation. 

Three  subjects  discontinued  the  use  of  marihuana  for  a  2- week  pe- 
riod, and  in  each  instance,  a  significant  increase  was  seen  in  blood 
testosterone  during  this  time.  It  would  therefore  appear  that  the 
testosterone-lowering  effect  of  marihuana  may  have  been  only  tempo- 
rary. 

Six  of  17  men  tested  showed  sperm  counts  that  were  below  normal, 
with  some  of  these  men  in  the  area  that  is  considered  sterile.  Of  course, 
we  do  not  know  if  the  lowered  or  sterile  counts  were  present  before 
these  men  began  using  marihuana.  We  also  do  not  know  if  these  counts 
might  increase  if  marihuana  use  is  stopped.  This  is  because  it  would 
require  a  minimum  of  3  to  6  months  off  the  drug  to  evaluate  this,  since 
it  takes  approximately  8  or  9  weeks  for  a  generation  of  new  sperm 
cells  to  come  to  maturity,  and  at  any  time  there  are  many  generations 
of  sperm  cells  within  the  testes. 

Two  of  the  20  subjects  using  marihuana  reported  impaired  sexual 
functioning.  In  one  instance,  a  man  who  had  experienced  potency 
problems  intermittently  over  the  preceding  year  was  asked  to  stop  us- 
ing marihuana,  and  now,  10  months  later,  has  not  had  further  sexual 
difficulties.  We  have  also  seen  two  patients,  who  were  not  part  of  this 
research  study,  where  frequent  long-term  use  of  marihuana  was  asso- 
ciated with  impotence  and  lowered  plasma  testosterone.  In  both  these 
instances  as  well,  discontinuing  the  marihuana  use  led  to  normal  sex- 
ual functioning. 

We  would  like  to  point  out  that  this  study  has  a  number  of  problems 
that  need  to  be  considered  for  a  careful  interpretation  of  our  findings. 
First,  the  sample  size  is  quite  small,  so  that  it  is  not  possible  to  accu- 
rately generalize  our  findings  to  all  young  men  using  cannabis  this 
frequently.  We  do  hope  that  others  will  enlarge  these  and  related 
studies  in  controlled  investigations.  Second,  we  have  no  absolute  veri- 
fication that  the  marihuana  users  were  not  also  using  other  drugs  that 
might  lower  hormone  levels  or  affect  sperm  production.  Third,  we 
have  no  knowledge  of  the  purity  or  potency  of  the  marihuana  used  by 
these  men.  Therefore,  we  reiterate  our  position  that  this  work  raises 
an  area  of  serious  concern,  but  does  not  answer  specifically  the  ques- 
tion of  safety  in  marihuana  use. 

There  are  theoretical  possibilities  that  might  be  related  to  our  find- 
ings beyond  those  that  I  have  discussed.  Since  at  least  some  of  the 
active  constituents  of  marihuana  have  been  shown  to  cross  the  pla- 
centa, there  may  be  a  significant  risk  of  depressed  testosterone  levels 
within  the  developing  fetus  when  this  drug  is  used  by  a  pregnant 
woman.  Since  normal  sexual  differentiation  of  the  male  depends  on 
adequate  testosterone  stimulation  during  critical  stages  of  develop- 


122 

ment,  occurring  approximately  at  the  third  and  fourth  months  of 
pregnancy,  it  is  possible  that  such  development  might  be  disrupted. 
Theoretically,  there  is  also  the  possibility  that  marihuana  use  by  the 
prepubertal  male  may  delay  the  onset  or  completion  of  puberty  or 
may  interfere  with  bone  growth,  if  a  suppression  of  pituitary  or 
hypothalamic  function  occurs.  Neither  of  these  possibilities  has  been 
investigated. 

Drs.  Masters,  Toro,  and  I  have  been  involved  in  further  research 
into  marihuana  effects  on  male  hormone  status,  where  we  have 
measured  the  effects  of  acute  marihuana  use  on  the  hormone  levels  of 
experienced  smokers.  In  this  experimental  setting,  we  are  working 
with  highly  controlled  conditions,  and  because  these  subjects  are 
hospitalized,  we  can  be  sure  they  are  not  using  any  additional  drugs, 
including  tobacco  and  alcohol. 

In  the  initial  phase  of  these  studies,  which  is  all  I  am  able  to  re- 
port about  today,  four  men  have  been  evaluated  during  the  first  3 
hours  after  smoking  a  single  marihuana  cigarette  of  known  potency. 
This  testing  is  done  after  they  have  abstained  from  any  marihuana 
use  for  at  least  2  weeks,  and  it  is  done  in  a  standardized  format  so 
that  variations  in  activity  or  time  of  day  do  not  occur.  Two  days 
prior  to  the  test  day,  each  subject  undergoes  a  series  of  blood  samples 
to  coincide  with  the  samples  to  be  obtained  during  the  test :  In  this 
way  we  can  evaluate  possible  stress  effects  of  obtaining  the  blood 
sample  as  well  as  variation  related  to  time. 

In  each  instance,  plasma  testosterone  levels  dropped  significantly 
lower  than  the  level  immediately  prior  to  smoking  marihuana,  with 
the  decreases  attributable  to  marihuana  ranging  from  10  to  36  per- 
cent, with  an  average  decrease  of  27  percent.  We  plan  to  expand 
these  studies,  and  a  full  report  will  be  prepared  within  a  year. 

In  addition,  the  Reproductive  Biology  Research  Foundation  has 
submitted  to  the  N.I.H.  a  proposal  to  study  the  effects  of  chronic, 
intensive  marihuana  use  by  women  in  the  reproductive  age  range 
specifically  designed  to  evaluate  their  hormonal  status  and  sexual 
functioning.  If  approval  and  funding  for  this  proposal  are  obtained, 
such  studies  could  begin  in  the  near  future. 

To  summarize  our  opinion  on  the  issue  of  legalization  of  mari- 
huana, we  must  state  that  from  a  scientific  viewpoint,  there  are  too 
many  unanswered  questions  to  warrant  such  a  change  in  current  laws. 
The  resolution  of  these  questions  may  present  convincing  evidence 
of  either  the  safety  or  danger  of  marihuana  use,  but  until  such  defini- 
tive information  is  available,  we  consider  it  of  paramount  import  to 
encourage  careful  and  objective  research  in  this  field. 

However,  we  wish  to  draw  the  distinction  between  our  role  as 
scientists  and  as  concerned  citizens.  Scientists  do  not  and  should  not 
make  or  enforce  laws,  and  our  position  is  simply  that  of  wanting  the 
legislators  and  the  public  to  be  well-informed  on  all  sides  of  this 
issue. 

Believing  that  the  question  of  legalization  of  marihuana  is  pre- 
mature, we  would  now  like  to  state  our  personal  hope  for  a  move  to- 
ward the  decriminalization  of  marihuana  possession.  When  mari- 
huana possession  is  a  felony,  society  as  well  as  the  individual  pays  a 
high  price  indeed,  measured  not  only  in  dollars  and  time,  but  in 


123 

immeasurable  disruption  of  lives.  The  attention  of  law  enforcement 
agencies  has  been  necessarily  diverted  from  other  areas  of  concern, 
and  yet  there  has  not  been  a  decrease,  but  a  marked  increase,  in  the 
use  of  this  drug. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

Mr.  Martin. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Dr.  Kolodny,  as  you  know,  there  is  a  widespread  belief,  especially 
among  young  people,  that  marihuana  enhances  one's  sexual  life.  Is 
this  borne  out  by  your  own  research  or  by  the  research  of  any  other 
scientists  with  whom  you  are  familiar? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  There  has  been  no  research  evidence  that  indicates 
that  marihuana  acts  as  a  sexual  stimulant,  In  point  of  fact,  although 
our  studies  were  not  directed  at  answering  this  question,  the  finding 
of  lowered  testosterone  levels  and  impotence  in  at  least  some  men 
using  marihuana  points  to  the  fact  that  an  opposite  effect  from  that 
so  popularly  stated  may,  in  fact,  be  going  on  at  least  in  some  users  of 
the  drug. 

Mr.  Martin.  Could  it  be  that  as  a  result  of  the  general  euphoria 
which  results  from  marihuana  use,  young  people  who  use  it  are  under 
the  impression  that  their  sexual  powers  have  been  enhanced,  when 
this  is  not  in  fact  the  case? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  This  is  one  possibility,  certainly.  Another  might  be 
that  the  perception  of  feelings  might  be  altered  but  the  actual  per- 
formance not  changed  or  possibly  even  diminished  somewhat  but 
that  the  perception  of  the  experience  was  altered  in  some  way. 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  there  enough  evidence  to  make  possible  a  compari- 
son of  the  effects  of  alcohol  and  tobacco  in  the  reproductive  system 
as  opposed  to  the  effects  of  marihuana  which  you  have  described  ? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  Yes,  sir,  I  think  there  is  and  I  base  my  comments  on 
work  that  I  have  conducted  as  well  as  work  done  by  others.  Alcohol, 
when  used  with  high  frequency  in  terms  that  would  generally  be  con- 
sidered alcohol  abuse,  certainly  can  produce  disruption  of  normal 
hormone  balance  and  lowering  of  testosterone  and  can  produce  actual 
wasting  of  the  testicular  tissue  as  well  as  other  feminizing  changes 
in  the  male  such  as  enlargement  of  the  breasts. 

The  effects  of  excessive  alcohol  use  on  the  production  of  sperm  are 
less  clearly  understood,  but  apparently  alcoholism  can  result  in  de- 
creased sperm  production.  However,  our  studies  of  the  acute  use  of 
alcohol,  that  is,  the  effect  of  the  immediate  effects  of  graded  amounts 
of  alcohol  on  blood  levels  of  testosterone,  indicate  no  drop  at  differ- 
ent times  of  day  and  under  different  conditions  in  experiments  that 
were  very  carefully  controlled.  Our  evidence  having  to  do  with  mari- 
huana, although  I  label  this  as  preliminary  evidence,  shows  that 
marihuana  does  have  a  sudden  effect  of  lowering  testosterone  values 
within  a  matter  of  hours. 

The  effects  of  cigarette  smoking  on  reproduction  have  been  greatly 
exaggerated,  I  believe,  in  the  popular  press.  There  is  currently  no 
good  evidence  of  which  I  am  aware,  based  on  my  own  work  or  work 
of  others,  that  cigarette  smoking  decreases  hormone  production  or 
decreases  sperm  production. 


124 

Mr.  Martin.  Your  study  mentioned  several  cases  of  impotence  re- 
sulting from  heavy  marihuana  use.  Do  you  know  of  any  other  medi- 
cal reports  that  would  tend  to  confirm  this  finding? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  There  have  been  anecdotal  reports,  as  this  report  is 
also,  mentioning  the  occurrence  of  impotence  associated  with  heavy 
cannabis  use  in  both  Jamaica  and  in  portions  of  the  Mideast.  How- 
ever, these  studies  have  not  been  done  carefully  enough  to  delineate 
what  the  actual  mechanisms  are.  Animal  studies  have  shown  that  at 
least  in  the  rat  a  deterioration  in  male  sexual  performance  has  been 
described  but  the  animal  literature  is  very,  very  sparse  on  this  point. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  the  research  paper  on  which  your  testimony  today 
is  based,  you  mention  the  possibility  that  there  may  be  some  relation- 
ship between  the  effects  of  marihuana  on  the  reproductive  system  and 
the  passive  behavior — sometimes  referred  to  as  "the  amotivational 
syndrome" — which  many  observers  have  noted  in  regular  marihuana 
users.  Could  you  elaborate  on  this  briefly  ? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  Yes,  sir.  In  elaborating  on  this  I  would  like  to  label 
what  I  am  saying  as  very  highly  speculative  but  nevertheless  it  does 
have  a  theoretical  basis.  There  is  in  existing  literature  a  correlation 
between  levels  of  testosterone  and  aggression,  and  I  use  that  term  in 
the  scientific  sense,  not  in  a  sense  of  socially  deviant  behavior.  When 
testosterone  levels  get  low.  usually  ambition  and  aggression  get  low. 
This  has  been  documented  in  animals,  in  primates  and  in  the  human 
in  a  variety  of  different  studies  over  the  past  5  years. 

In  theory,  if  the  reports  of  alteration  of  behavior  patterns  in  heavy 
cannabis  users  are  accurate,  the  basis  for  this  so-called  amotivational 
syndrome  may  potentially  be  the  decreased  testosterone  level. 

Mr.  Martin.  A  very  interesting  speculation,  Dr.  Kolodny.  I  hope 
it  is  pursued  scientifically. 

If  cannabis  products  impair  the  DNA  of  sperm  cells,  as  some  re- 
searchers now  report,  could  this  imply  the  possibility  that  the  sperm 
of  marihuana  smokers  thus  affected  might  produce  genetically  dam- 
aged offspring  ? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  Mr.  Martin,  that  is  a  very  difficult  question  to  an- 
swer, and  I  think  I  would  have  to  say  that  it  cannot  be  answered  on 
the  basis  of  any  research  that  has  been  done.  That  possibility,  I  be- 
lieve, would  exist  but  I  would  like  to  qualify  what  I  am  saying  by 
the  statement  that  much  of  the  testimony  today,  I  think,  has  been 
couched  in  terms  of  scientific  opinion  rather  than  actual  scientific 
fact,  and  I  would  like  to  distinguish  my  answer  there  as  my  opinion, 
that  is,  that  such  genetic  damage  might  occur,  but  it  would  require 
careful  studies  in  the  human  to  know  whether  that  is  happening. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  your  statement,  Dr.  Kolodny,  you  said  that  your 
findings  are  preliminary,  and  that  there  will  have  to  be  more  research 
before  these  findings  can  be  firmly  established.  I  have  a  philosophical 
question.  Should  a  scientist  publish  findings  which  he  considers  to  be 
preliminary  ? 

Dr.  Kolodny.  Mr.  Martin,  I  would  answer  this  question  in  this 
way.  I  think  it  is  a  good  question.  I  believe  that  it  is  the  responsibil- 
ity of  a  scientist  to  call  the  attention  of  other  scientists  to  possible 
areas  of  research  for  their  consideration.  It  is  also  my  personal  belief, 
and  I  will  so  state  it,  that  there  is  no  piece  of  scientific  research  that 


125 

can  be  fully  accepted  until  it  has  been  repeated  by  at  least  one  in- 
dependent party,  that  is,  who  has  not  participated  in  the  original 
work.  This  process  of  the  replication  of  scientific  experiments,  I 
think,  is  a  fairly  accepted  one  in  the  academic  community,  and  I  use 
the  word  preliminary  in  that  sense,  that  while  I  have  full  confidence 
in  the  findings  in  the  small  group  of  men  we  studied  I  will  have  more 
confidence  when  other  researchers  have  enlarged  these  studies. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  stated  in  your  prepared  statement  that  you  would 
be  opposed  to  the  legalization  of  marihuana  ? 

Dr.  Kolodnt.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  is,  complete  legalization  ?  Could  you  briefly  state 
the  basic  reasons  for  your  opposition  to  legalization  ? 

Dr.  Kolodnt.  Yes,  sir,  I  will  try  to  summarize  those  reasons.  I  am 
restricting  my  remarks  to  my  own  field  of  expertise,  which  is  the 
field  of  reproduction,  but  I  do  acknowledge  the  testimony  of  other 
scientists  in  different  areas  that  I  think  speaks  toward  the  same 
point,  and  that  is  as  Dr.  Morishima  pointed  out,  there  are  many  re- 
search areas  that  have  simply  not  been  fully  enough  studied  for  us 
to  even  begin  to  make  a  statement  of  safety  in  marihuana  use. 

In  my  particular  area  there  is  evidence  currently,  based  on  both 
animal  and  human  experimentation,  that  indicates  the  possibility  of 
consequences  that  potentially  are  serious  ones,  and  in  light  of  these 
possibilities,  which  I  would  mention  briefly  as  disruption  of  sperm 
production,  the  possibility  of  birth  defects,  the  possibility  of  impair- 
ment of  hormone  balance  and  the  possibility  of  either  inhibition  of 
puberty  or  disruption  of  normal  sexual  differentiation  during  fetal 
development,  I  think  until  answers  to  these  questions  are  more  fully 
known  that  it  would  be  extremely  poor  judgment  to  consider  legal- 
ization. 

Mr.  Martin.  A  further  question  on  marihuana  and  the  law.  You 
said  that  you  favor  rewriting  the  marihuana  law  so  that  simple  pos- 
session would  be  decriminalized.  I  think  this  is  something  upon  which 
just  about  everyone  agrees  and  very  few  young  people,  if  any — I  sup- 
pose there  are  some — are  being  sent  to  jail  today  for  simple  posses- 
sion. But  there  are  some  who  argue  that  a  penalty,  even  if  a  minimal 
penalty,  should  be  retained  in  order  to  make  it  clear  to  young  people 
that  society  has  to  protect  itself  against  this,  and  society  does  not 
approve  of  its  use.  Other  people  feel  that  any  kind  of  punishment  is 
counterproductive.  What  is  your  own  thinking  on  this  matter? 

Dr.  Kolodxy.  I  think  that  is  a  good  question  and  I  do  sincerely 
hope  that  no  one  is  being  jailed  today  for  simple  possession.  The  use 
of  sanctions  of  the  law  in  the  form  of  perhaps  a  fine  or  some  other 
appropriate  punishment,  if  one  chooses  to  use  that  word,  is  certainly 
a  necessary  thing  if  one  is  not  going  to  legalize  the  drug,  and  I  am  in 
favor  of  retaining  legal  sanctions  but  decriminalizing  from  the  view- 
point of  an  actual  jail  sentence,  and  I  do  specify  for  possession  of 
the  drug. 

Mr.  Martin.  All  right,  thank  you  for  clarifying  your  position  on 
this  matter. 

Did  I  understand  correctly  that  your  studies  that  have  recently 
been  conducted  have  been  funded  by  NIH  ? 

Dr.  Kolodnt.  No,  sir. 


126 

Mr.  Martin.  Or  you  have  applied  for  funding  ? 

Dr.  Kolodnt.  We  have  applied  for  funding  for  doing  a  similar 
study  in  females  to  look  for  reproductive  consequences  of  cannabis 
use.  We  are  currently  carrying  on  research  that  also  has  been  funded 
by  a  private  source.  The  Frederick  Ayer  Foundation  has  provided 
our  funding. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  No,  thank  you,  sir. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you  very  much,  Doctor.  I  appreciate  your 
testimony  here  on  a  very  important  subject. 

Professor  Leuchtenberger,  I  am  sorry  you  have  to  wait  so  long. 
You  have  been  very  patient  and  we  certainly  welcome  your  testi- 
mony, Professor.  Could  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record  ? 

TESTIMONY  OF  PROF.  CECILE  LEUCHTENBERGER,  HEAD  OF  THE 
DEPARTMENT  OF  CYTOCHEMISTRY  AT  THE  SWISS  INSTITUTE 
FOR  EXPERIMENTAL  CANCER  RESEARCH,  LAUSANNE,  SWITZER: 
LAND 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  I  am  Prof.  Cecile  Leuchtenberger,  and  I  am 
the  head  of  the  Department  of  Cytochemistry  at  the  Swiss  Institute 
for  Experimental  Cancer  Research,  Lausanne,  Switzerland. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  will  ask  a  few  questions  here  to  establish  your 
qualifications. 

I  understand  you  are  a  biologist  who  has  had  special  training  in 
experimental  cancer  research,  cytology,  cytochemistry  and  biophysics, 
is  that  correct  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  that  you  received  your  Doctor  of  Philos- 
ophy in  Biology  at  Columbia  University  in  1949  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  that  you  continued  your  advanced  education 
at  institutes  in  Sweden  and  in  Switzerland? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  from  1950  to  1959  you  were  head  of  the  De- 
partment of  Cytochemistry  at  the  Institute  of  Pathology,  Western 
Reserve  University,  in  Cleveland? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  established  this  depart- 
ment, did  you  not? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes,  I  did. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  subsequently  worked  at  the  Children's 
Cancer  Research  Foundation  and  the  Children's  Medical  Center  at 
Harvard  University? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  From  1956  to  1962,  you  served  as  a  member  of  the 
advisory  committee  of  the  American  Cancer  Society,  and  you  also 
served  on  its  committee  on  research  on  lung  cancer  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  your  research  has  at  different  times  been 


127 

supported  by  the  U.S.  Public  Health  Service  and  the  World  Health 
Organization,  in  addition  to  various  foundations? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  are  now  an  associate  professor  at  the 
medical  school  of  the  University  of  Lausanne  in  Switzerland? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  have  also  lectured  extensively  at  Euro- 
pean and  American  universities? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  are  the  author  of  over  130  scientific 
papers? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  All  told,  you  have  had  more  than  30  years  expe- 
rience in  cancer  research,  and  26  years  of  experience  in  cell  research  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  understand  you  reside  in  Switzerland  but  you 
are  an  American  citizen  since  1944,  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  We  will  be  glad  to  have  your  statement,  Doctor. 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  thank  you  first  for  the 
honor  to  be  invited  to  report  about  our  research  studies  on  marihuana 
before  this  distinguished  committee.  We  started  our  experimental 
studies  on  marihuana  in  1970  and  I  would  like  to  say  this  work  was 
done  in  collaboration  with  Prof.  Dr.  Rudolf  Leuchtenberger  M.D., 
experimental  pathologist.  The  marihuana  was  obtained  after  permis- 
sion of  the  Health  Department  of  the  Swiss  Government,  from  Dr. 
Olav  J.  Braenden,  director,  United  Nations  Narcotics  Laboratory, 
Geneva,  Switzerland  and  the  work  was  supported  by  the  World 
Health  Organization. 

Our  experimental  work  on  marihuana  has  been  concerned  so  far 
with  three  principal  questions. 

(1)  What  effect  has  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes  on  the  respi- 
ratory system,  and  how  does  the  effect  compare  with  that  of  smoke 
from  tobacco  cigarettes? 

(2)  What  effect  has  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes  on  the  cell 
metabolism,  in  particular,  what  is  its  effect  on  the  genetic  material, 
that  is  on  the  DNA? 

(3)  "What  effect  has  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes  on  the 
spermatogenesis  ? 

Experimental  exploration  in  this  direction  appeared  to  us  neces- 
sary because  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  smoking  of  marihuana  has  be- 
come a  widespread  human  habit,  there  was  hardly  any  information 
concerning  effects  of  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  itself  on  the  respira- 
tory system  and  other  tissues  and  their  cell  metabolism. 

Furthermore,  during  our  extensive  experimental  studies  concerning 
the  role  of  tobacco  cigarette  smoke  in  lung  carcinogenesis  and  its 
effect  on  cellular  DNA  metabolism  of  the  respiratory  system,  we  had 
developed  model  systems  permitting  to  examine  effects  of  fresh  smoke 
on  tissues,  cells  and  DNA  under  standardized  conditions. 

.  There  is  no  intention  on  my  part  here  to  impose  on  you  any  techni- 
cal details  but  I  think  for  a  better  understanding  of  the  results  which 


128 

we  will  discuss  here  today,  I  would  like  to  say,  if  I  may,  just  a  few 
words  about  the  model  systems  which  we  used. 

There  are  two  main  model  systems  which  we  used,  and  which  are 
actually  complementary  to  each  other. 

In  the  first  model  system  we  expose  cultures  prepared  from  animal 
or  human  lung  to  puffs  of  fresh  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes. 
Now,  this  model  system  is  particularly  suitable  to  assess  time  se- 
quential alterations  in  cells  and  tissues,  after  short-  and  long-term 
exposure. 

In  the  second  model  system  we  use  inhalation  experiments  in  mice 
with  marihuana  cigarette  smoke.  I  would  like  to  say  that  inhalation 
experiments  in  mice  pose  a  difficult  problem  because  man  is  the  only 
individual  who  inhales  voluntarily  the  smoke  either  from  tobacco  or 
marihuana  cigarettes.  However,  we  have  developed  a  machine  which 
permits  individual  mice  to  inhale  repeatedly  one  puff  of  smoke  al- 
ternating with  fresh  air  thus  imitating  as  closely  as  possible  the  habit 
of  human  cigarette  smokers.  This  model  system  permits  us  to  assess  al- 
terations in  the  respiratory  and  other  systems  after  short-  or  long- 
term  inhalation  of  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  in  living  animals. 

For  a  better  understanding  of  the  results  to  be  discussed,  a  few 
words  should  be  said  at  least  in  regard  to  the  methods  employed  in 
analysis  of  the  genetic  material  DNA.  We  used  special  quantitative 
cytochemical  technics,  such  as  radioautography,  microspectrography, 
and  microfluorometry.  The  unique  character  of  these  methods  lies  not 
only  in  the  possibility  that  an  analysis  of  DNA  can  be  made  in  a 
single  cell,  or  in  part  of  a  cell,  such  as  the  nucleus  or  the  chromo- 
somes, but  also  that  the  DNA  analysis  can  be  made  in  situ  in  micro- 
scopic preparations,  in  other  words,  without  destroying  cell  or  tissue 
architecture.  Thus,  it  is  possible  to  make  a  direct  comparison  between 
morphology  and  DNA  behavior  on  the  same  cell  and  from  cell  to  cell 
at  the  microscopic  level. 

There  are  three  different  types  of  experimental  studies  which  we 
have  carried  out  so  far,  and  on  which  the  following  results  were 
obtained. 

STUDY  1  :  A  COMPARISON  BETWEEN  EFFECTS  ON  MOUSE  LUNG  CULTURES  OF 
SHORT-TERM  EXPOSURE  TO  SMALL  DOSES  OF  SMOKE  FROM  CIGARETTES 
MADE  OF  TOBACCO  AND  OF  SMOKE  FROM  CIGARETTES  MADE  OF  THE  SAME 
TOBACCO   BUT   TO   WHICH   MARIHUANA   WAS   ADDED 

In  the  first  experimental  study  we  exposed  mouse  lung  cultures  to 
puffs  of  fresh  smoke  from  tobacco  cigarettes  without  marihuana,  and 
then  the  same  cultures  to  puffs  of  fresh  smoke  from  tobacco  cigarettes 
to  which  marihuana  was  added.  In  these  experiments  we  used  a  rela- 
tively low  dose  or,  as  we  say  in  technical  terms,  a  small  puff  volume 
of  the  cigarette  smoke  and  a  relatively  short  exposure. 

It  was  found  that  addition  of  marihuana  to  tobacco  cigarettes  pro- 
duced a  smoke  which  was  much  more  harmful  to  these  mouse  lung 
cultures  than  was  the  smoke  from  tobacco  cigarettes  without  mari- 
huana. From  the  data  given  in  figures  1  and  2,  it  can  be  seen  that  daily 
exposure  to  two  puffs  (puff  volume  8  ml)  for  5  consecutive  days  to 


129 

cigarette  smoke  without  marihuana  did  not  produce  significant  alter- 
ations in  the  cultures,  when  compared  with  nonexposed  control  cul- 
tures. On  the  other  hand,  the  same  type  of  exposure  to  cigarette 
smoke  with  marihuana  evoked  significant  alterations  in  cell  morphol- 
ogy, cell  division,  DNA  content  and  DNA  synthesis. 

The  frequencies  of  all  these  alterations  were  statistically  significant 
when  compared  not  only  with  frequencies  in  nonexposed  control 
cultures,  but  also  when  compared  with  frequencies  in  cultures  ex- 
posed to  tobacco  cigarettes  without  marihuana. 

The  finding  that  after  exposure  to  smoke  from  tobacco  cigarettes 
with  marihuana  there  were  many  abnormalities  in  cell  division  and 
a  shift  from  the  constant  normal  DNA  content  in  cells  towards  higher 
DNA  amounts  or  polyploidy  (fig.  2),  deserves  special  attention, 
because  both  types  of  alterations  are  often  observed  in  precancerous 
or  cancerous  lesions.1 


EFFECTS    OF  FRESH   SMOKE   (2  PUFFS   DAILY  FOR  5   DAYS)  FROM  CIGARETTES  WITHOUT  AND  WITH 
MARIJUANA  (0,4%  TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL)  ON   MORPHOLOGY,  MITOTIC    INDEX  AND  DNA. SYNTHESIS 
IN    EPITHELOID  CELLS   OF  LUNG    EXPLANTS    FROM   SNELLS    AND    C  57    BLACK    MICE. 


TYPE  OF 
EXPERIMENT 


CONTROL 


CIGARETTE    SMOKE 
WITHOUT    MARIJUANA 


CIGARETTE    SMOKE 
WITH    MARIJUANA 


ABNORMALITIES 
OF  CELLS 


(+) 


++ 


MITOTIC  INDEX 
(n,=  54) 


0,28    i    0,07 


0,39  t  0,002 


0,610,11 
pCo  =.0005 
pCi  =  .025 


DNA   CONTENT  (F.M.) 

(n2  r  450) 

FREQUENCY  OF  NUCLEI 

2  DNA 

4  DNA    


2_ 

1 

p  =  .0005 


DNA  SYNTHESIS 

(3H    TdR) 

In,  =  15  ) 
FREQUENCY  OF 
LABELED  CELLS 


10,9  i  2,1 


13,6  i  2,6 

19,2  t  1,9 
pCo=.01 
pCi  =.05 


" 


(+)  =  DOUBTFUL 
(+)  -  +    =  SLIGHT    EFFECT 
++  =  PRONOUNCED   EFFECT 


F.  M  *  =  FEULGEN    MICROSPECTROGRAPHY 
n,     =  NUMBER    OF  CULTURES  EXAMINED 
n,     =  NUMBER    OF  CELLS    MEASURED 


1  The  results  mentioned  here  were  published  in  more  details  under  the  title  "Mor- 
phological and  cytochemical  effects  of  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  on  epithelioid  cells 
of  lung  explants  from  mice"  (Leuchtenberger  C.  and  Leuchtenberger  R.)  in  "Nature," 
vol.  234,   No.   5326,    pp.    227-229,    1971. 


130 


'is.  2 


COMPARISON   BETWEEN    EFFECTS  OF  FRESH   SMOKE 
(2  PUFFS   DAILY,  5  DAYS)   FROM  ONE   UNFILTERED  CIGA- 
RETTE   WITHOUT  AND  WITH   DIFFERENT   DOSES  OF 
"MARIJUANA"  AND  THC,ON  THE   DNA  CONTENT#OF   EPI- 
THELOID    CELLS  (^=1200)    FROM   LUNG   EXPLANTS 
OF  SNELL'S   MICE.(N2=3) 


KX> 
80- 
60 
40 
20 
0 


100 
80 
60- 

40 
20 
0 


CONTROL 


100 
80 
60- 
40- 
20- 


|4DNA| 


100 
80 
60- 
40 
20- 
0 


UNFILTERED   CIGARETTE 


100 -| 

80 
60 
40- 

20 
0 


i     ! 


100-| 
80 
60 
40 


P^ 


UNFILTERED  CIGARETTE  WITH  "MARIJUANA" 


oo- 

100 

0,5  gr.         80 
0,4°0THC 

80- 

2  DNA 

60- 

60 

40- 
20- 



p  =  0,025  40 
20 

0- 

4  DNA 



—  0 

100-] 

1 9r-  80 

0,4°(,THC 

60 

p  =  0,0005  ^ 


4  DNA 
\ 


20- 


0,5  gr. 
400THC 


2  DNA 


4  DNA 


• 


AMOUNT  OF  D.N.A. 

N,=  NUMBER    OF   CELLS  MEASURED  N2  :  NUMBER    OF    EXPERIMENTS 

*  FEULGEN      MICROSPECTROGRAPHY 


131 

STUDY  2  :  A  COMPARISON  BETWEEN  EFFECTS  ON  HUMAN  LUNG  CULTURES  OF 
SHORT-TERM  EXPOSURE  TO  LARGER  DOSES  OF  SMOKE  FROM  CIGARETTES 
MADE  OF  KENTUCKY  STANDARD  TOBACCO  AND  OF  SMOKE  FROM  CIGARETTES 
MADE  OF  MARIHUANA  ONLY 

If  we  come  now  to  the  second  type  of  the  experimental  study,  here 
we  used  human  lung  cultures,  because  after  all  it  is  the  human  prob- 
lem in  which  we  are  interested.  We  used  human  lung  cultures  from 
adult  and  fetal  lungs,  and  compared  effects  of  smoke  from  cigarettes 
which  were  made  from  tobacco  only — whereby  we  used  the  so-called 
Kentucky  standard  tobacco — with  effects  of  smoke  from  cigarettes 
which  were  prepared  with  the  same  paper  but  made  from  marihuana 
only. 

For  this  study  on  human  lung  cultures  larger  puff  volumes,  25  mil- 
liliters of  smoke  were  utilized  than  in  the  study  on  mouse  lung  cul- 
tures, 8  milliliters.  This  puff  volume  was  chosen  because  it  resembles 
more  closely  the  standard  puff  volume  of  35  milliliters  inhaled  by  hu- 
man smokers. 

It  was  found  that  the  alterations  in  human  lung  cultures — adult  or 
fetal  lung — were  very  similar  after  exposure  to  smoke  from  mari- 
huana cigarettes  and  after  exposure  to  smoke  from  Kentucky  stand- 
ard cigarettes.  From  the  scheme  in  figure  3  and  the  data  given  in  fig- 
ures 4  and  5,  it  can  be  seen  that  each  type  of  smoke  produced  abnor- 
malities in  DNA  synthesis,  in  cell  division,  and  stimulated  irregular 
growth  of  the  lung  cultures. 

Furthermore,  after  exposure  to  each  type  of  smoke  the  human  lung 
cultures  disclosed  a  variability  in  number  and  DNA  content  of 
chromosomes. 

However,  this  disturbance  of  the  genetic  equilibrium  of  the  cell 
population  which  persisted  for  prolonged  periods  after  exposure  was 
more  marked  after  exposure  to  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes 
than  after  exposure  to  smoke  from  Kentucky  standard  tobacco  ciga- 
rettes— compare  statistical  significance,  p  values  in  figures  4  and  5. 


132 


F 


>9- 


cMevr.ic.al     CAnanc-jeS     iri    ot'-ll.s       £,-cm     c*du.l4- 


Af+er  Exposure 


Inh.tD.-rlon      o£       DMA 

Syn-Hiesls    arvd  of-  mifosvS. 

Enlarge,  me  v">+     cmd 
irr-egubM-i+ies    of  nuclei  ; 
hvCjH      DNJA   C-<Dn+e.ni- 
£>-Ky>-.LAlo47ion     o-f      DMA 
.Sv.;  n4-hesis    j  aboofmal 
mik>£is  ^    I  agg  i  mg    £>-£ 

Hyperplasia    ^   abnormal 
pr-O^  i-fe^Oi-i-ioo       Wig  In 

rvM+o£.is  _,    abnorKnal 
number-  a.nd      D  NJ  A 


133 


J?ig.4 


/ 


COMPARISON    BETWEEN  THE  DNA   CONTENT  (FEULGEN   MICROFLUO 
ROMETRY)  IN  METAPHASE  (M)  AND  TELOPHASES  (T)OF   FIBROBLAS- 
TIC  CELLS  (N*=  431)    FROM    A  CONTROL   ADULT  HUMAN   LUNG 
EXPLANT  AND  AFTER    EXPOSURE  TO   FRESH   SMOKE   FROM    MARI- 
JUANA  AND  KENTUCKY  CIGARETTES.  (N1=  5) 


50- 

40 


20- 

10 


CONTROL 


M 


r 


50- 
40- 


20- 

10 


^~ 


j£L 


Ubcte 


\- 

Z 
UJ 
O 
CC 
UJ 

a. 


> 
o 

z 

HI 

=> 

o 

UJ 


KENTUCKY  CIGARETTES 


p  Co  =  0065 


pCo.=  05       _ 


DNA  AMOUNT  IN  BASIC  UNITS 


N*=  Number  of  cells  measured 
N1=  Number  of  experiments 


134 


lig.5 


COMPARISON    BETWEEN   NUMBER  OF   CHROMOSOMES  OF   FIBRO- 
BLASTIC   CELLS  (N"=633)   FROM   A  CONTROL  ADULT  HUMAN  LUNG 
EXPLANT  AND  AFTER   EXPOSURE  TO  FRESH  SMOKE  FROM  KEN- 
TUCKY AND  MARIJUANA  CIGARETTES.  (N1  =  12) 


CONTROL 


4N 


i  i  i  n  i  i  i  H-rn  i  n  m  i  i  rr'T'i  mm 

46  50     52-       64-  75-        84-        88        -92  96-  105- 


KENTUCKY  CIGARETTES 


P.  C  -  0005 


n  m  n  m  n  n  n  i  rrn 


46  50 -52 -56-  76-  87     89-92         95-100 


MARIJUANA  CIGARETTES 


P«  Co<  0005 


n  i  n  n  r-TT^n 


-r*n*r*  r~ 

42  46  50     52-  56-72-       82-86     88       -92  96-  105 

NUMBER  OF   CHROMOSOMES 


N*=  NUMBER   OF  METAPHASES  COUNTED 
N1  =  NUMBER   OF  CULTURES  EXAMINED 


135 

This  larger  effect  of  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  on  chromosomes 
and  their  genetic  material  gains  special  significance  if  the  following 
observation  is  taken  into  consideration.  Cigarettes  made  of  marihuana 
smoked  and  drew  less  well  than  cigarettes  made  of  Kentucky  tobacco. 
The  marihuana  cigarettes,  which  contain  a  sticky  resin,  have  a  much 
larger  side  stream — this  means  much  more  smoke  is  lost  in  the  air 
than  with  ordinary  tobacco — so  that  much  less  marihuana  smoke 
reached  the  cultures  than  after  tobacco  smoke. 

It  remains  to  be  seen  whether  long-term  exposure  to  marihuana 
and  tobacco  smoke  produces  even  greater  differences  between  their 
effects  on  genetic  material. 

STUDY  3  :  EFFECTS  OF  SHORT-  AXD  LONG-TERM  INHALATION  OF  MARIHUANA 
CIGARETTE  SMOKE — ALONE  OR  IN  COMBINATION  WITH  TOBACCO  CIGA- 
RETTE  SMOKE ON   THE  RESPIRATORY  AND  OTHER  SYSTEMS  OF  MICE 

The  last  study  which  we  are  carrying  out,  are  inhalation  experi- 
ments in  mice  with  marihuana  cigarette  smoke.  Here  I  would  like  to 
stress  the  fact  that  these  experiments  are  underway,  they  are  very 
incomplete,  and  the  results  which  I  present  here  today  have  not  been 
published  and  they  are  preliminary.  So  far  we  have  found  that  in- 
halation of  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes  produced  irregular 
growth  in  the  respiratory  system  of  these  mice.  The  interesting  obser- 
vation is,  and  this  was  done  by  Dr.  Rudolf  Leuchtenberger,  who  is 
a  pathologist,  that  he  noted  that  the  location  of  the  alterations  was 
different  from  that  after  tobacco  cigarette  smoke.  After  inhalation 
of  tobacco  cigarette  smoke,  alterations  were  found  mainly  in  the 
larger  bronchi  and  bronchioles,  while  after  marihuana  they  were 
found  in  terminal  bronchioles. 

Furthermore,  as  seen  in  figure  6,  inhalation  of  smoke  from  mari- 
huana cigarettes  produces  a  marked  variability  and  increase  in  DNA 
content  in  these  bronchial  cells. 


136 


i''i 


.6 


AMOUNT  OF  DNA*  AND  SIZE  OF  NUCLEI  (N=600)  IN  BRONCHIOLAR 
EPITHELIAL  CELLS  OF  SNELL'S  CONTROL  MICE  AND  AFTER  INHA- 
LATION OF    FRESH   SMOKE    FROM  MARIHUANA  CIGARETTES. 
(-2000  PUFFS) 


z 

LLI 

o 
cc 

UJ 
Q. 


o 

z 

UJ 

o 

UJ 

cc 
u_ 


CONTROL 

40- 

,1 

40- 

I 

30- 

30- 

. 

20- 

20- 

10- 

I — 

~u 

10- 

- 

n 

I 
6 

10         14          18 

I             I             I             I 
22         26         30         34 

4 

1        I 
6           8           10 

MARIHUANA 

40- 

I  Pco«000! 

40- 

I  Pco«  0005 

30- 

30- 

JL 

20- 

,                                           20- 

m 

10- 

I          18 

10- 
22         26         30         34 

M^ 

I 
6 

I 
1( 

) 

1' 

I 

4 

6           8           10 

DNA  AMOUNTS  IN  ARBITRARY  UNITS        AREAS  OF  NUCLEI 

IN  r2jj 


*  MICROSPECTROPHOTOMETRY 
N=  NUMBER  OF  NUCLEI  MEASURED 


137 

Another  observation  in  this  inhalation  experiment,  which  is  even 
more  preliminary  than  this  one.  concerns  the  reproductive  system  of 
the  male  mouse.  It  was  found  that  after  male  mice  had  inhaled  for 
3  months  puffs  of  smoke  from  approximately  100  cigarettes  made  of 
marihuana  alone,  there  was  a  marked  disturbance  in  spermatogenesis 
which  was  not  found  with  the  parallel  group  which  had  inhaled  the 
tobacco  smoke.  After  marihuana  there  were  not  only  less  mature 
sperms  than  in  the  controls  or  in  the  mice  which  had  inhaled  tobacco 
smoke,  but  many  of  the  spermatids  carried  a  faulty  and  reduced 
amount  of  DNA. 
Mr.  Martin.  A  spermatid  is  merely  a  sperm  cell? 
Dr.  Leuchtenrerger.  It  is  a  stage  just  before  the  mature  sperm  is 
formed.  I  should  like  to  say  that  such  spermatids  should  contain  ex- 
actly half  the  amount,  haploid.  of  what  we  call  the  normal  diploid 
amount  of  DNA.  If  this  preliminary  observation  can  be  confirmed  on 
a  larger  series  of  experiments,  it  would  indicate  that  marihuana 
smoke  interferes  also  with  male  fertility;.  In  our  previous  extensive 
studies  concerned  with  the  fertility  problem,  which  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  marihuana  problem,  we  had  found  that  reduced  amounts  of 
DNA  in  spermatids  are  frequently  associated  with  cattle  and  human 
infertility.2 

In  conclusion.  I  would  like  to  say  that  we  realize  fully  that  many 
more  experimental  studies  are  urgently  needed  before  any  definite 
conclusions  can  be  drawn  concerning  long-  and  short-term  effects  of 
marihuana  cigarette  smoke  on  tissues,  cells  and  their  genetic  material, 
DXA. 

Nevertheless,  on  the  basis  of  the  data  obtained  so  far  in  our  ex- 
perimental studies  3  the  following  statement  appears  justified. 

Marihuana  cigarette  smoke  has  a  harmful  effect  on  tissues  and 
cells  of  humans  and  of  animals.  The  observation  that  marihuana 
cigarette  smoke  stimulates  irregular  growth  in  the  respiratory  system 
which  resembles  closely  precancerous  lesions  would  indicate  that 
long-term  inhalation  of  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  may  either  evoke 
directly  lung  cancer  or  may  at  least  contribute  to  the  development  of 
lung  cancer.  The  observation  that  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  inter- 
feres with  the  DNA  stability  in  cells  and  in  chromosomes,  that  is,  it 
disturbs  the  genetic  equilibrium  of  the  cell  population,  strongly  sug- 
gests that  long-term  inhalation  may  alter  the  hereditary  material 
DNA  and  may  also  have  mutagenic  potentialities.  Consequently  fur- 
ther extensive  research  is  urgently  needed  to  explore  chronic  effects 
of  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  on  cells  and  tissues.  In  particular, 
studies  should  be  carried  out  which  are  concerned  with  the  problem 
of  possible  mutagenic  properties  of  marihuana. 
Thank  you. 


"  Leuclitenbcrser  C.  Weir  D.  R..  Schrader  P.,  and  Leuchtenberger  R.  "Decreased 
Amounts  of  Desoxvribose  Nucleic  Acid  (DNA)  in  Male  Germ  Cells  as  a  Possible  Cause 
of  Human  Male  Infertility."  Acta  Genet,  fi  :  272-278,  19~>fi.  The  results  mentioned  here 
were  published  in  more  detail  under  the  following  titles :  "Abnormalities  of  Mitosis., 
DNA  Metabolism  and  Growth  in  Human  Lunc  Cultures  Exposed  to  Smoke  From 
Marihuana  Cigarettes,  and  Their  Similarity  With  Alterations  Evoked  by  Tobacco  Cig- 
arette Smoke"  (Lpuehtehberper  C.  and  'Leuchtenbergpr  R.)  In  United  Nations  Bul- 
letin. ST/SOA/SER.S/37  November  17.  1972 ;  "Effects  of  Marihuana  and  Tobacco 
Smoke  on  Human  Lung  Phvsiolojrv"  (Leuchtenberger  C.  Lpuchtpnberger  R.,  and  Schneider 
A.)  in  Nature,  vol.  241,  No.  53S5*  pp.  137-139.  1973;  "Effects  of  Marihuana  and  Tobacco 
Smoke  on  DNA  and  Chromosomal  Complement  in  Human  Lung  Explants"  (Leuchtenberger 
C,  Leuchtenberger  R.,  Ritter  U..  Inui  N. )  in  Nature,  vol.  242,  No.  5397,  pp.  403-404,  1973 

3  See  summary  of  main  findings  in  table  1. 


138 

Table  I 

Main  findings  obtained  in  our  experimental  studies  concerned  with  effects  of 
marihuana  cigarette  smoke  on  tissues,  cells  and  their  DNA  metabolism. 

(1)  Cultures  of  animal  and  human  lungs — after  repeated  exposure  to  smoke 
from  marihuana  cigarettes  disclose  abnormalities  in  DNA  synthesis,  in  number 
of  chromosomes  and  their  DNA  content,  in  cell  division  and  growth  (atypical 
proliferation). 

(2)  Mice — after  repeated  inhalation  of  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes 
disclose  atypical  proliferation  in  bronchi  of  lungs  accompanied  by  abnormalities 
in  DNA  synthesis  and  cell  division.  There  are  also  disturbances  in  spermato- 
genesis, such  as  reduction  of  DNA  content  in  spermatids. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Professor.  You  mentioned  in  the  last 
part  of  your  statement  that  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  may  have 
mutagenic  potentialities.  What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  It  means  that  marihuana  cigarette  smoke 
may  alter  the  hereditary  material.  We  understand  under  a  mutagen 
an  agent  which  produces  a  change  in  the  genetic  material  which  is 
hereditary. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  would  lead  or  could  lead  to  abnormal  births? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  If  you  disturb  the  normal  equilibrium  of  the 
genetic  material  the  possibilities  that  you  would  get  abnormal  growth 
must  be  considered. 

Mr.  Martin.  Have  you  found  evidence  that  marihuana  or  that  cig- 
arettes laced  with  marihuana — I  just  want  to  understand — either 
one  is  much  more  likely  to  harm  lung  tissues  than  only  cigarettes? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Did  your  experiments  produce  clearly  cancerous  for- 
mations in  either  the  mice  or  in  the  lung  tissue  which  you  exposed 
to  marihuana  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  No,  we  have  no  cancer  so  far  but  you  must 
not  forget  that  we  only  used  relatively  short-term  inhalation  and 
short-term  exposure.  For  instance,  from  our  experiments  which  we 
did  with  tobacco  cigarette  smoke,  we  know  that  the  mice  had  to  be 
exposed  to  inhalation  for  1  year  or  longer  before  we  saw  enhancement 
of  the  lung  carcinogenesis.  Such  long-term  experiments  with  mari- 
huana are  urgently  needed.  I  am  sorry  if  I  did  not  express  it  suffi- 
ciently that  the  results  were  obtained  after  relatively  short-term 
exposure. 

Mr.  Martin.  But  there  are  certain  changes  in  the  cell  structures 
which  suggested  to  you  that  the  lungs  were  moving,  the  lung  tissue 
was  moving  in  a  precancerous  direction  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes,  as  I  pointed  out,  there  is  such  an  indi- 
cation. After  marihuana  cigarette  smoke  there  are  precancerous 
stages  similar  to  those  after  tobacco  cigarette  smoke,  of  which  we 
know  that  they  precede  malignant  transformation,  or  cancer. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  plan  to  conduct  any  experiments  on  the  long- 
term  effects  of  cannabis  on  lung  tissues  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  We  have  such  experiments  underway  but  I 
would  not  like  to  talk  about  them  because  they  are  too  scanty  and 
unfinished. 

Mr.  Martin.  What  was  the  THC  content  of  the  marihuana  you 
used  in  your  experiments — was  it  strong  marihuana  or  relatively 
weak? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  We  got  from  Dr.  Braenden  marihuana  with 


139 

0.6  percent,  and  with  4  percent  of  THC,  and  we  compared  effects  on 
mouse  lung  cultures  and  DNA.  Although  we  did  not  make  a  dose 
response  experiment,  we  did  find  that  abnormalities  in  DNA  were 
larger  after  larger  concentrations  of  the  tetrahydrocannabinol  in 
marihuana.  But  I  would  like  to  say  that  before  making  a  definitive 
statement,  there  should  be  experiments  done  where  different  doses  of 
THC  are  used  and  assessed  as  to  their  effects  on  DNA. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  do  not  know  whether  you  feel  qualified  to  answer 
this  question,  Professor  Leuchtenberger,  but  it  has  been  suggested  by 
some  sociologists  and  educators  in  the  United  States  that  drug  educa- 
tion is  counterproductive,  that  it  does  not  scare  young  people  away 
from  drugs  while  it  frequently  excites  their  curiosity.  Would  you 
have  any  comments  on  this? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  I  feel  that  this  statement  is  not  a  correct 
statement.  We  must  not  underestimate  the  intelligence  and  the  open- 
ness of  young  people.  I  can  say  from  my  own  experience  that  the 
young  people  would  like  very  much  to  have  the  scientific  facts  in- 
stead of  emotions.  The  few  young  Swiss  people  with  whom  I  have 
discussed  the  problem  of  marihuana  in  Switzerland,  and  actually 
other  young  Americans  who  work  over  there,  when  they  see  the  data, 
that  is  when  they  see  that  marihuana  smoke  does  damage  to  the  cells 
of  the  respiratory  system,  and  to  the  DNA,  I  think  they  give  smok- 
ing of  marihuana  a  second  and  third  thought.  I  therefore  feel  very 
strongly  that  education  of  children  in  schools  concerning  health- 
damaging  properties  of  marihuana  should  start  as  soon  as  possible. 
They  should  be  informed  on  the  scientific  facts  as  they  become 
available. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  think  the  kind  of  scientific  evidence  that  has 
been  presented  at  this  hearing  today  might  be  effective  in  persuading 
some  young  people  who  are  being — are  leaning  toward  marihuana 
to  consider  it? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  I  am  convinced  of  that. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  for  that  statement,  Professor  Leuchten- 
berger. 

A  final  question  I  would  like  to  ask  for  you  comment  on  two  pas- 
sages from  a  book  by  Dr.  Lester  Grinspoon  of  Harvard  University, 
a  Harvard  psychiatrist,  "Marihuana  Reconsidered."  It  is  a  best  sell- 
ing book,  probably  the  most  popular  of  all  the  promarihuana  books — 
and  there  have  been  quite  a  few  of  them.  These  are  two  passages  that 
appear  on  different  pages.  On  one  page  he  says : 

It  is  quite  true  that  among  the  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  papers  dealing 
with  cannabis,  there  is  relatively  little  methodologically  sound  research.  Yet, 
out  of  this  vast  collection  of  largely  unsystematic  recordings  emerges  a  very 
strong  impression  that  no  amount  of  research  is  likely  to  prove  that  cannabis 
is  as  dangerous  as  alcohol  and  tobacco. 

That  was  written  in  1971. 

And  on  page  371,  there  appeared  the  following  passage : 

Indeed,  the  greatest  potential  for  social  harm  lies  in  the  scarring  of  so  many 
young  people  and  the  reactive,  institutional  damages  that  are  direct  products 
of  present  marihuana  laws.  If  we  are  to  avoid  having  this  harm  reach  the 
proportions  of  a  real  national  disaster  within  the  next  decade,  we  must  move 
to  make  the  social  use  of  marihuana  legal. 

I  ask  for  your  comment  on  these  two  statements. 


140 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Well,  on  the  first  statement  I  would  say  no 
serious  scientist  at  this  time  really  could  say  that  marihuana  is  harm- 
less if  you  have  no  facts.  And  the  second,  I  think  in  view  of  the  evi- 
dence which  was  brought  here  today,  and  I  believe  there  will  be  more, 
I  think  you  cannot  make  such  a  statement.  To  me  as  a  scientist,  such 
statements  as  you  read  are  absolutely  incomprehensible,  to  say  it  in 
the  most  charitable  way. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much,  Professor  Leuchtenberger,  for 
a  very  cogent  presentation.  I  have  no  further  questions. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  should  like  to  ask  that  the  four 
publications  which  the  professor  told  us  about  in  discussing  her  ex- 
periments be  submitted  for  the  subcommittee  files  and  that  they  be 
inserted  in  this  record  as  part  of  the  appendix  if  space  permits. 

Senator  Gurnet.  They  will  be  accepted. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  would  have  this  question  in  discussing  your  study 
No.  1,  Professor,  you  spoke  of  the  addition  of  marihuana  to  tobacco 
cigarettes.  Did  this  mean  that  you  used  cigarettes  composed  of  part 
marihuana  and  part  tobacco? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  in  discussing  your  results  obtained  in  study  3, 
and  I  quote  from  your  statement :  "Furthermore,  as  seen  in  figure  6, 
inhalation  of  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes  produced  a  marked 
variability,  an  increase  in  DNA  content  in  these  bronchial  cells."  I 
am  looking  at  figure  6  and  I  have  a  little  difficulty  understanding 
your  statement.  What  is  the  control — is  that  the  result  with  smoking 
tobacco  cigarettes? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  We  have  actually  two  controls.  One  which  we 
call  a  negative  control,  which  is  nonexposed,  and  the  second  control 
is  when  you  expose  it  to  tobacco  smoke. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Well,  your  chart  appears  to  show  only  one  control, 
if  I  read  it  correctly. 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  "Which  figure? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Figure  6,  amount  of  DNA  and  size  of  nuclei  in 
bronchiolar  epithelial  cells  of  Snell's  controlled  mice  and  after  in- 
halation of  fresh  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes. 

Now,  your  control  seems  to  be  the  amount  of  DNA  and  the  size  of 
the  nuclei  in  the  epithelial  cells  of  Snell's  controlled  mice,  is  that 
correct  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now,  you  say  you  have  two  controls.  Is  the  other 
one  reflected  in  any  study? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  We  did  not  place  it  in  this  chart  but  after 
tobacco  cigarette  smoke  we  did  not  find  any  differences  from  the 
control  in  the  bronchiolar  tissue. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  am  trying  to  find  out  what  figure  6  is.  I  know 
what  it  says  at  the  top  but  you  say  that  figure  6  shows  that  the  in- 
halation of  smoke  from  marihuana  cigarettes  produces  a  marked  in- 
crease in  DNA  content. 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  A  marked  increase  over  what?  Over  the  control? 
That  is  the  area,  the  amount  of  DNA  and  the  size  of  the  nuclei  in 
control  mice? 


141 

Dr.  Leuchtexberger.  It  is  DNA  in  content  in  the  cells  of  mice 
which  have  not  been  exposed  to  marihuana  cigarettes.  This  upper 
thing,  this  is  the  normal  distribution  which  you  will  find  in  the  DNA 
content  in  the  bronchiolar  cells. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  In  other  words,  you  used  the  same  mice  in  one  case, 
but  in  one  test  the  mice  had  not  been  subjected  to  any  smoke  at  all? 

Dr.  Leuchtexberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  At  the  bottom,  the  mice  had  been  subjected  to 
marihuana  ? 

Dr.  Lettchtexberger.  Right. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  So  that  there  is  no  comparison  with  cigarette  smoke 
involved  in  figure  6  at  all? 

Dr.  Lettchtexberger.  No. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  "Well  now,  the  control  appears  to  range,  the  amount 
of  DNA  ranges  as  high  as  almost  40,  and  under  the  marihuana  it 
never  ranges  above  20,  but  you  say  there  was  an  increase.  I  cannot 
read  the  chart. 

Dr.  Leuchtexberger.  In  the  control,  about  70  percent  of  the  cells 
have  an  amount  of  DNA  between  10  and  14,  in  arbitrary  units.  After 
marihuana  you  have  no  cells  which  have  this  amount  of  DNA;  all 
the  cells  have  a  larger  and  variable  amount. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  Well  now,  let  us  look  at  the  size  of  the  nuclei  on 
the  same  chart,  figure  6. 

Dr.  Leuchtexberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  Your  control  ranged  to  about  38,  if  I  read  it  cor- 
rectly. Your  size  of  the  nuclei  under  the  marihuana  smoking  ranged 
to  about  32  or  not  more  than  33  ? 

Dr.  Leuchtexberger.  No,  this  is  the  frequency  in  percent  which 
you  read.  The  main  range  of  size  of  nuclei  is  between  four  and  seven 
in  controls,  while  after  exposure  to  the  marihuana  the  main  range  is 
from  six  to  nine. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  All  right,  your  figures,  your  blocks  in  black  and 
your  blocks  in  white,  represent  really  two  things,  then.  You  may  not 
read  them  as  to  height,  you  have  to  read  them  both  horizontally  and 
vertically  at  the  same  time? 

Dr.  Leuchtexberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  And  they  represent,  I  see  it  reads  here  at  the  left, 
frequency  in  percent? 

Dr.  Leuchtenberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  I  must  apologize  for  this  line  of  questioning,  but  I 
dare  say  that  if  it  confused  me  it  might  confuse  others  similarly  un- 
scientific who  see  one  higher  than  the  other  when  it  says  lower.  I 
think  I  now  understand  it. 

You  are  showing  by  this  chart  the  total  proportion  of  all  your  test 
cells  that  showed  results  in  a  certain  range. 

Dr.  Leuchtexberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  Is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Leuchtexberger.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwixe.  I  understand  now.  Thank  you  for  explaining  it.  I 
have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurxey.  AVell,  I  want  to  thank  all  of  the  members  of  the 
panel  for  coming  here  today  and  testifying  on  this  very  important 
subject  of  marihuana  and  its  effect  upon  human  beings.  It  is  quite 


142 

obvious  from  the  testimony  today  that  what  the  subcommittee 
thought  when  we  started  the  hearings,  that  is  ,we  do  not  know  much 
about  marihuana,  is  readily  apparent.  From  what  we  do  know  about 
it,  it  looks  as  though  we  ought  to  get  a  lot  more  knowledge  about 
it  because  indeed,  the  effect  of  marihuana  upon  humans  may  be  quite 
serious.  I  am  sure  that  these  hearings — and  we  will  have  others — 
mark  an  initial  and  very  important  efforts  in  trying  to  find  out  the 
effect  of  this  drug  upon  human  society. 

I  do  want  to  thank  you  so  much  for  contributing  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  subcommittee.  Thank  you. 

The  subcommittee  hearing  is  adjourned  at  the  call  of  the  Chair. 

[Whereupon,  at  5 :20  p.m.,  the  hearing  was  adjourned,  to  recon- 
vene at  10  a.m.,  Friday,  May  17,  1974.] 

[The  following  testimony  was  given  on  Monday,  May  20.  In  ac- 
cordance with  the  instructions  of  Senator  Strom  Thurmond,  who  pre- 
sided, it  is  printed  together  with  the  testimony  of  the  panel  of  medi- 
cal researchers  who  testified  on  Thursday,  May  16.] 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  JULIUS  AXELROD,  NATIONAL  INSTITUTE  OF 

MENTAL  HEALTH 

Senator  Thurmond.  Dr.  Julius  Axelrod,  I  believe,  is  our  first  wit- 
ness. Doctor,  we  are  honored  to  have  you  here  and  will  be  pleased  to 
hear  from  you  at  this  time. 

Dr.  Axelrod.  I  am  honored  to  be  here. 

Mr.  Martin.  Dr.  Axelrod,  would  you  identify  yourself  briefly  for 
the  record  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  I  am  chief  of  the  section  of  pharmacology,  labora- 
tory of  clinical  science,  the  National  Institute  of  Mental  Health, 
United  States  Public  Health  Service. 

Senator  Thurmond.  All  right.  Dr.  Axelrod,  where  did  you  grad- 
uate from  medical  school? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  I  am  not  a  medical  doctor,  I  am  a  doctor  of  philos- 
ophy ;  I  graduated  from  George  Washington  University. 

Senator  Thurmond.  From  George  Washington  University  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Senator  Thurmond.  And  you  received  your  doctorate  degree  where  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  From  George  Washington  University. 

Senator  Thurmond.  You  obtained  your  bachelor  of  science  degree 
at  the  City  College  of  New  York,  did  you  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Now,  you  pursued  your  scientific  studies  while 
working  in  various  hospitals  and  institutes  as  laboratory  assistant, 
research  associate,  and  chemist,  I  believe? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Is  that  right? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Right. 

Senator  Thurmond.  From  1953  to  1955  you  were  senior  chemist  at 
the  National  Heart  Institute  of  the  NIH?' 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Senator  Thurmond.  In  1955  you  received  your  Ph.  D.  from  George 
Washington  University,  is  that  right? 


143 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Since  1955  you  have  been  chief  of  the  section 
on  pharmacology,  laboratory  of  clinical  science,  National  Institute  of 
Mental  Health? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Doctor,  you  are  the  author  or  coauthor  of 
more  than  360  scientific  papers,  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Senator  Thurmond.  And  you  have  been  the  recipient  of  numerous 
awards  for  scientific  achievement,  is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Thurmond.  And  in  1970  you  were  awarded  the  Nobel 
Prize  for  physiology  or  medicine. 

Dr.  Axelrod.  That's  correct. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Now,  what  was  the  specific  accomplishment 
that  brought  you  this  award? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  The  elucidation  of  the  chemistry  of  the  nervous  sys- 
tem, and  studies  of  the  effect  of  drugs  on  the  brain. 

Senator  Thurmond.  The  effect  of  drugs  on  the  brain? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Right. 

Senator  Thurmond.  I  see.  Well,  you  may  proceed  with  your  state- 
ment, if  you  will. 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Senator,  I  am  honored  to  testify  before  this  com- 
mittee. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Now,  are  you  going  to  follow  your  statement 
strictly  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes,  I  am. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Or  would  you  just  want  to  put  it  in  the 
record  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  I  would  rather  read  it,  if  I  may. 

Senator  Thurmond.  All  right,  you  may  proceed  with  your  state- 
ment. 

Dr.  Axelrod.  For  many  years  our  laboratory  has  been  involved  in 
biochemical  and  pharmacological  investigations  on  drugs  affecting 
the  mind.  We  have  developed  very  sensitive  methods  for  measuring 
LSD  and  amphetamine  in  blood,  urine,  and  tissues.  These  studies 
made  it  possible  to  establish  how  long  these  psychoactive  drugs  re- 
main in  the  body,  how  much  gets  into  the  brain,  and  how  the  body 
disposes  of  them.  Several  years  ago  I  found  enzymes  in  the  liver 
that  detoxify  narcotic  drugs  such  as  morphine,  methadone,  and  dem- 
erol.  More  recently  my  colleagues  and  I  demonstrated  that  drugs 
such  as  cocaine  and  amphetamine  change  the  action  of  noradrena- 
line, a  nerve  chemical  important  for  brain  function. 

Our  interest  in  marihuana  stemmed  from  the  increasing  use  of  the 
drug  and  the  lack  of  knowledge  concerning  what  happened  to  it  in 
the  body.  The  discovery  that  delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol — THC— 
as  the  most  active  principal  in  the  marihuana-containing  cannabis 
plant  and  the  chemical  synthesis  of  this  compound  by  the  Israeli 
chemist,  Mechoulim,  made  it  possible  to  study  its  fate  in  the  human 
bodv.  The  NIMH  Drug  Abuse  Center  made  available  to  us  as  well 
as  other  investigators  radioactively  labeled  delta-9-tetrahydrocan- 
nabinol.  The  availability  of  THC  made  it  possible  for  the  recent 


144 

rapid  advances  in  our  knowledge  of  the  biochemistry,  pharmacology, 
and  behavior  effects  of  this  drug. 

We  developed  sensitive  methods  to  measure  THC  in  blood  and 
urine  of  man.  After  injection  to  human  volunteers  we  drew  blood 
samples  periodically  over  a  period  of  time  and  measured  the  THC 
content.  After  an  intravenous  injection  of  THC  the  amount  of  this 
compound  in  plasma  rapidly  declined  during  the  first  hour,  with  a 
half-life  of  30  minutes.  That  means,  half  the  drug  disappeared  with- 
in 30  minutes.  After  1  hour  the  THC  disappeared  from  the  plasma 
and  presumably  from  the  body  much  more  slowly,  with  a  half- 
life  of  60  hours.  THC  and  its  biochemically  transformed  products 
continued  to  be  excreted  in  the  urine  for  more  than  a  week!  The 
initial  rapid  decrease  in  the  plasma  represents  a  redistribution  of 
marihuana  active  principals  from  the  blood  into  tissues  including 
the  brain  and  also  chemical  transformation.  The  metabolic  alteration 
of  THC  takes  place  mainly  in  the  liver.  In  man  the  psychological 
effects  of  marihuana  are  greatest  in  15  minutes  after  injection,  begin 
to  diminish  after  1  hour  and  are  largely  dissipated  by  3  hours.  This 
is  consistent  with  the  initial  fast  disappearance  of  the  drug  from 
the  blood. 

The  slower  disappearance  of  THC  from  the  body  presumably 
represented  retention  in  some  tissue  and  slow  release.  The  observa- 
tion that  THC  and  its  transformation  products  persist  in  humans 
for  long  periods  of  time  indicated  to  us  that  the  drug  and  its  metab- 
olities  would  accumulate  in  some  tissues  when  taken  repeatedly.  We 
then  did  a  study  to  find  out  in  what  tissues  THC  is  localized  and 
whether  its  concentration  builds  up  after  repeated  administration. 

To  gather  this  information,  radioactive  THC  was  injected  into 
rats.  After  a  single  dose  there  was  10  times  more  of  the  drug  in  the 
fat  than  any  other  tissue  examined.  After  repeated  administration 
of  THC  there  was  a  gradual  and  steady  accumulation  of  the  drug 
in  the  fat.  After  a  single  injection  of  THC  there  was  barely  detect- 
able concentrations  of  THC  in  the  brain,  but  after  repeated  adminis- 
tration there  was  a  gradual  accumulation  of  the  drug  in  the  brain. 

THC  when  administered  to  man  is  almost  completely  trans- 
formed, mainlv  in  the  liver.  The  major  metabolic  product  was  identi- 
fied as  11 -hydroxy  THC.  This  metabolite  has  been  found  in  our 
laboratory  and  that  of  others  to  have  essentially  the  same  psychic 
effects,  that  is,  as  anxiety,  euphoria,  and  pleasure.  The  intravenous 
administration  of  THC  to  chronic  marihuana  smokers  resulted  in  a 
more  rapid  disappearance  of  THC  from  the  blood,  and  at  the  same 
time  there  is  a  more  rapid  appearance  of  the  physiologically  active 
metabolite  11-hydroxy  THC.  This  would  suggest  that  repeated  use 
of  THC  results  in  an  increased  capacity  of  enzymes  in  the  liver  to 
form  this  active  metabolite. 

After  the  injection  of  the  active  principal  of  marihuana,  THC, 
there  is  a  rapid  distribution  of  the  drug  in  tissues  especially  fat 
and  metabolic  transformation  to  active  and  inactive  metabolic  prod- 
ucts. After  repeated  administration  of  THC  is  considerable  accumula- 
tion and  retention  of  the  drug  in  fat  and  a  smaller  accumulation  in  the 
brain.  Repeated  administration  of  THC  results  in  an  increased  capac- 
ity to  form  a  psychologically  active  metabolic  product. 


145 

Until  recently  there  was  little  reliable  information  about  the 
pharmacological,  biochemical,  and  psychological  actions  of  mari- 
huana. Through  the  support  of  research  by  the  U.S.  Government  for 
this  important  problem,  increased  knowledge  is  now  becoming  avail- 
able. The  medical,  social,  and  legal  aspects  of  marihuana  are  still 
highly  complex  and  require  continued  study  at  all  these  levels. 

Thank  you.  I  will  be  happy  to  answer  any  questions,  if  you  wish. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Counsel  will  now  propound  some  questions. 

Mr.  Martin.  Doctor,  there  is  no  question  in  the  scientific  com- 
munity that  THC  is  a  toxic  substance  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  No,  there  is  no  question. 

Mr.  Martin.  There  are,  however,  differences  within  the  scientific 
community  as  to  the  degree  of  toxicity,  and  how  the  toxicity  affects 
the  body  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  it  be  a  reasonable  assumption  for  a  scientist 
to  make  that  the  retention  and  accumulation  in  the  brain  of  toxic 
substance  would  probably,  over  a  period  of  time,  lead  to  damage  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes,  that's  a  good  assumption. 

Mr.  Martin.  But  it  has  still  to  be  demonstrated  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  It  has  still  to  be  demonstrated;  yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  there  any  similarity  between  the  manner  in  which 
THC  accumulates  in  the  tissue  and  the  manner  in  which  DDT 
accumulates  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes,  both  THC  and  DDT  are  fat  soluble  compounds, 
and  because  of  this  physical  property  are  retained  in  fatty  tissue. 

Mr.  Martin.  This  retention  also  affects  the  gonads,  does  it  not  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Well,  it  depends.  I  have  heard  recent  reports  that 
marihuana  lowers  the  male  gonadal  hormone,  testosterone. 

Mr.  Martin.  No,  I  am  talking  about  that — it  does  accumulate? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Oh,  yes,  it  would  accumulate  in  gonads,  the  brain, 
and  other  tissues  where  there  are  large  concentrations  of  fat. 

Mr.  Martin.  Now,  you  had  an  opportunity,  Dr.  Axelrod,  to  ex- 
amine briefly  the  testimony  given  to  the  subcommittee  last  Thursday 
by  Prof.  Kobert  Heath,  who  is  chairman  of  the  department  of  psy- 
chiatry at  Tulane  University.  His  testimony  had  to  do  with  persist- 
ence of  abnormal  brain  patterns  in  rhesus  monkeys  who  had  been 
subjected  to  marihuana  smoke  for  a  period  of  time.  Dr.  Heath  told 
the  subcommittee  that  these  persistent  alterations  in  the  brain  wave 
pattern  pointed  strongly  to  the  conclusion  that  there  had  been  per- 
haps irreversible  damage  to  the  brain.  If  this  is  the  case,  couldn't 
the  accumulation  of  THC  in  the  brain,  which  is  established  by  your 
research,  tie  in  with  the  changes  referred  to  by  Dr.  Heath  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes;  I  would  like  to  make  a  comment  about  Dr. 
Heath's  report;  may  I? 

Mr.  Martin.  By  all  means. 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Now,  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  in  pharma- 
cology is  the  amount  of  a  compound  or  drug  that  enters  the  body. 
You  could  take  the  most  poisonous  compound,  and  if  you  take  too 
little,  there  is  no  effect,  One  may  take  a  very  supposedly  safe  com- 
pound, and  if  you  give  enough  of  it,  it  will  cause  toxic  effects.  This, 
I  think,  all  pharmacologists  recognize. 


146 

I  respect  Dr.  Heath ;  he  is  a  fine  neurologist ;  but  the  doses  he  has 
given  for  the  acute  effect,  for  example,  would  be  equivalent  to  smok- 
ing a  hundred  marihuana  cigarettes,  a  very  heavy  dose  of  marihuana. 
And  the  amount  he  has  given  for  the  chronic  effect  represents 
smoking  30  marihuana  cigarettes  3  times  a  day  for  a  period  of  6 
months.* 

The  results  indicate  that  marihuana  causes  an  irreversible  damage 
to  the  brain.  But  the  amounts  used  are  so  large  that  one  wonders 
whether  it's  due  to  the  large  toxic  amounts  Dr.  Heath  has  given.  I 
think  it  would  be  a  better  experiment  if  he  had  done  what  is  done 
in  pharmacology,  a  dose  response;  smaller  amounts  equivalent  to 
that  used  by  an  occasional  marihuana  smoker  and  larger  amounts 
used  by  a  chronic  smoker  to  see  what  levels  would  produce  these 
irreversible  effects.  I  hope  that  this  will  be  done. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  for  your  comment,  Dr.  Axelrod.  But,  I 
would  like  to  point  out  that  when  Dr.  Heath  presented  his  report,  he 
had  to  do  it  in  13  minutes;  it  was  a  very  brief  summary  of  a  much 
longer  study.  I  did  have  the  impression  from  our  questions  afterward 
that  the  experiment  was  performed  with  doses  of  different  calibrations. 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Right. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  at  different  levels,  and  maybe  that  is  not  re- 
flected in  the  paper  itself.  Evidence  has  also  been  given  during  the 
hearing.  Dr.  Axelrod,  by  Dr.  Nahas  of  Columbia  University,  and 
recent  research  indicated  that  marihuana  inhibits  human  cell  im- 
mune response  mechanism  and  reproduction.  Does  this  also  tie  in 
with  the  findings  of  your  research  and  the  findings  of  Dr.  Heath's 
research  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Isn't  there  a  pattern  relating  to  permanent  damage 
of  the  brain  ? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes,  perhaps  this  would  be  so.  Again,  I  would  like 
to  qualify  my  statement.  Dr.  Nahas  is  a  very  fine  scientist  but  these 
findings  need  repetition  and  confirmation. 

Mr.  Martin.  By  all  means.  I  might  point  out  that  quite  a  few 
of  the  scientists  made  the  point,  although  it  was  clear  they  were 
pretty  Avell  convinced  by  the  findings,  the  research  had  to  be  con- 
sidered preliminary  for  the  time  being.  Nevertheless,  there  was 
enough  evidence  from  preliminary  research  to  bring  it  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  public. 

Dr.  Axelrod.  I  absolutely  agree. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  agree  with  that? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  I  agree  that  taking  marihuana  in  large  doses  is 
harmful,  and  the  evidence  is  becoming  pretty  compelling.  But,  one 
has  to  remember  that  one  has  to  distinguish  between  a  small  in- 
nocuous dose  taken  by  an  occasional  marihuana  smoker  and  a  large 
repeated  dose. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Doctor,  I  want  to  thank  you  very  much  for 
your  testimony  here  today;  we  appreciate  your  appearance. 

♦The  question  raised  by  Dr.  Axelrod  about  the  dosages  employed  in  the  Heath  experi- 
ment was  the  subject  of  a  subsequent  commentary  by  Professor  Heath,  mailed  to  the  sub- 
committee on  July  9,  1974.  The  text  of  this  commentary  is  to  be  found  in  the  appendix  on 
page  382. 


MARIHUANA-HASHISH  EPIDEMIC  AND  ITS  IMPACT  ON 
UNITED  STATES  SECURITY 


FRIDAY,  MAY   17,   1974 

U.S.  Senate, 
Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the 
Administration  of  the  Internal  Security  Act 

and  Other  Internal  Security  Laws 
of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  D.C. 

The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  recess,  at  10  a.m.,  in  room 
2228,  Dirksen  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Edward  J.  Gurney 
presiding. 

Also  present :  J.  G.  Sourwine,  chief  counsel ;  David  Martin,  senior 
analyst. 

Senator  Gurney.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order,  please. 

I  wish  we  could  come  to  order  because  we  are  wasting  time. 

Would  you  gentlemen  rise,  please? 

Will  you  all  raise  your  right  hands? 

Do  you  swear  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

[All  witnesses  replied  "I  do."] 

Senator  Gurney.  Thank  you. 

We  have  a  long  series  of  witnesses  here  today,  as  we  know,  and  I 
have  obligations  that  require  me  to  leave  for  Florida  early  in  the 
afternoon  so  I  would  hope  we  could  be  as  speedy  and  as  brief  as  we 
can,  and,  in  no  way  underestimating  the  extreme  importance  of 
this  testimony,  but,  as  I  say,  try  to  get  our  facts  out  as  quickly  as 
we  can. 

The  first  witness  will  be  Dr.  Hall. 

Dr.  Hall,  will  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record,  please?  You 
don't  have  to  stand  up,  just  state  who  you  are,  you  know,  your  name, 
where  you  reside. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  JOHN  A.  S.  HALL,  JAMAICA 

Dr.  Hall.  I  am  Chairman  of  the  Department  of  Medicine  at  the 
Kingston  Hospital  in  Jamaica. 

Senator  Gurney.  And  I  will  ask  a  few  questions,  Dr.  Hall,  to 
establish  your  qualifications  here. 

As  I  understand  it,  you  received  your  medical  degree  from  the 
University  of  London.  King's  College,  in  1951? 

Dr.  Hall.  That  is  correct. 

(147) 


148 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  went  on  to  take  a  diploma  in  neurology 
from  the  London  Medical  School  in  1958  ? 

Dr.  Hall.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Subsequently  you  had  Observation  Fellowships 
in  Neurology  at  the  Neurological  Institute  in  New  York,  at  the  De- 
partment of  Neurology  in  Pennsylvania  Hospital,  and  at  the  Beau- 
mont Hospital,  University  of  Lausanne,  in  Switzerland? 

Dr.  Hall.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  served  as  medical  officer  in  the  Ministry 
of  Health  in  Jamaica  from  1952  to  1960? 

Dr.  Hall.  Correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  are  currently  Associate  Lecturer  in 
Medicine  at  the  University  of  the  West  Indies  and  Visiting  As- 
sistant Professor  of  Neurology  at  Columbia  University  ? 

Dr.  Hall.  Correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  have  been  senior  physician  and  elected 
Chairman  of  the  Department  of  Medicine  of  the  Kingston  Hospital, 
in  Kingston,  Jamaica,  since  1965? 

Dr.  Hall.  Correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Would  you  proceed  with  your  statement,  Dr.  Hall  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  venture  a  suggestion  ? 

Senator  Gurnet.  Yes,  indeed. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  The  Chair  might  wish  to  order  that  all  of  the 
prepared  statements  go  into  the  record  as  though  read  at  the  begin- 
ning of  each  witness'  presentation,  leaving  him  free  to  repeat  the 
statement  or  ad  lib  or  make  emphasis  and  instruct  integration  of  the 
two  when  the  record  is  corrected  for  printing  so  that  nothing  will  be 
lost  and  time  might  be  saved. 

Senator  Gurnet.  That  is  a  good  suggestion,  Mr.  Counsel,  and  that 
is  so  ordered. 

Dr.  Hall. 

Dr.  Hall.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  thank  you  and  your  staff  for 
giving  me  this  opportunity  to  appear  on  this  distinguished  panel. 

In  a  previous  publication  I  pointed  to  the  fortuitous  introduction 
of  ganja  or  marihuana  into  Jamaica  in  the  18th  century  as  a  possible 
source  of  fiber  plant,  by  the  English  plantation  owner,  Matthew 
Walker  at  his  botanical  gardens  in  Gordon  Town,  near  Kingston. 

The  Indian  connection  following  the  arrival  of  indentured  labor- 
ers at  the  end  of  the  last  century  is  established  historical  fact. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Doctor,  I  wonder  if  you  could  point  that  micro- 
phone directly  into  your  mouth  so  that  it  will  pick  up  your  voice 
just  a  little  better. 

Dr.  Hall.  Quiet  acceptance  and  public  indifference  to  the  use  of 
ganja  continued  until  1954  when  the  village,  Pinnacle,  in  the  hills 
of  St.  Catherine  some  20  miles  from  Kingston,  was  destroyed  by 
a  police  raiding  party.  The  village  had  become  notorious  as  the  home 
of  praedial  larceny,  a  center  for  the  propagation  and  use  of  ganja, 
and  the  headquarters  of  the  Rastafari  cult. 

The  resulting  dispersal  of  the  Rastafari  cultists  into  the  urban 
slums  of  Kingston,  and  into  rural  areas,  was  to  have  far-reaching 
consequences,  as  has  been  published  in  data  elsewhere. 


149 

I  became  interested  in  cannabis  as  a  clinical  problem  because  of: 

(1)  Its  ready  availability  in  Jamaica;  it  grows  in  any  backyard 
and  in  the  wooded  forests. 

(2)  Ill-defined  and  undocumented  clinical  manifestations; 

(3)  Lack  of  a  definite  laboratory  test  for  identifying  it; 

(4)  Bizarre,  sometimes  short-lived  confusional  states  seen  in 
urban  and  rural  practice; 

(5)  Folklore;  and 

(6)  The  impact  of  American  cultural  mores  on  our  island  com- 
munity. 

With  these  factors  in  mind  I  have  over  the  years  inquired  rou- 
tinely of  all  patients  at  initial  interview  whether  they  smoke  ganja 
or  drink  ganja  tea.  The  Department  of  Medicine  at  Kingston  Public 
Hospital  sees  12,000  outpatients  at  its  clinics  annually. 

My  team  sees  approximately  5,000  of  these  patients,  who  represent 
a  spectrum  ranging  from  the  unemployed  ghetto  dweller  to  the 
upper  middle  class. 

It  has  been  possible  therefore: 

(a)  To  arrive  at  a  relative  incidence  of  ganja  usage 

(b)  To  study  the  motivation  for  its  use 

(c)  To  identify  clinical  pictures  with  which  its  use  is  associated 
more  often  than  coincidence  will  allow 

(d)  To  do  certain  laboratory  studies 

(e)  To  gain  some  insight  into  its  psychocultural  effects. 

Ours  is  an  adult  clinic.  Males  are  almost  exclusively  smokers  of 
ganja  although  urbanization  and  fashion  are  causing  other  trends. 
These  males  come  from  the  social  spectrum  indicated  above.  The  age 
range  was  15-65  years. 

Ganja  tea  is  used  about  equally  among  working  class  men  and 
women.  In  the  first  4  months  of  this  year,  for  example,  there  were 
just  over  35  self-confessed  ganja  users  among  just  over  1,000  clinic 
patients.  This  incidence  of  3  percent  contrasts  with  other  reports  of 
widespread  use,  and  is  in  line  with  the  incidence  say  of  Parkin- 
sonism which  constitutes  2.5  percent  of  my  clinic  population,  and 
is  an  uncommon  condition  in  Jamaica.  It  is  accepted  that  the  clinic 
population  is  not  all  embracing ;  but  if  this  figure  were  even  tripled, 
we  arrive  at  9  percent. 

Motivation  for  the  use  of  ganja  is  summarized  as  follows : 

1.  Curiosity. 

2.  Conformity  with  the  group;  social,  religious,  political. 

3.  Relief  of  tension. 

4.  Stimulation  of  thought  and  physical  activity. 

5.  Folk  medicine. 

In  our  observation,  dosage  depends  on : 

1.  Manner  and  frequency  of  use. 

2.  Variations  in  dosage  per  se. 

3.  Potency  of  preparation  smoked  or  brewed. 

4.  Unreliable  retrospective  recall  of  frequency  of  use. 

5.  Technique  of  smoking. 

6.  Personal  and  intragroup  variations. 

7.  Limitations  of  costs. 

8.  Legal  strictures  against  the  possession  and  use  of  ganja. 


150 

It  is  noteworthy  that  a  joint,  or  marihuana  cigarette  costs  in  our 
situation  40  to  50  cents,  while  a  bottle  of  beer  costs  25  cents  and  a 
quart  of  rum  costs  $1.80.  A  chillum  pipeful  of  dried  leaves  is 
equivalent  to  about  five  cigarettes.  To  reach  the  same  "high"  using 
alcohol  or  ganja,  the  cost  would  be  more  with  ganja.  This  challenges 
a  point  made  by  others  that  ganja  is  the  poor  man's  substitute  for 
alcohol. 

Significantly  none  of  these  patients  has  been  exposed  to  ampheta- 
mines. LSD,  heroin,  or  other  hallucinogens.  Those  interviewed  could 
do  without  ganja  for  long  periods  of  months  at  a  time.  Ritual 
smokers  also  knew  when  they  had  had  enough. 

My  findings  were  essentiallv  nonclinical  and  clinical. 

The  nonclinical  findings  related  mainly  to  (1)  Educational  level; 
(2)  occupational  status;  (3)  marital  status;  (4)  criminal  record,  on 
which  I  have  commented  in  a  previous  publication. 

The  levels  that  are  quoted  were  quite  low  but  certainly  are  not 
universally  applicable  as  broader  observation  at  the  clinic,  commu- 
nity or  national  level  could  indicate.  The  same  observations  would 
applv  to  criminal  record. 

Clinical  findings  were  certainly  more  significant  and  were  divided 
into  immediate  and  long-term  findings. 

The  immediate  findings  have  been  fully  corroborated  by  other 
people  who  have  found  autonomic  overactivity  as  shown  by  pupil- 
lary dilation,  conjunctival  suffusion,  profuse  diaphoresis,  tachy- 
cardia, and  mild  hypotension.  Shortly  after  these  some  of  my  cases 
showed  hypothalamic  overactivity,  that  is  mild  euphoria;  others 
showed  medullary  stimulation  by  way  of  sedation  or  acute  vomiting. 

The  long-term  effects  were  also  quite  remarkable.  There  were : 

1.    RESPIRATORY    COMPLICATIONS 

An  emphysema-bronchitis  syndrome,  common  among  Indian  labor- 
ers of  a  past  generation,  who  were  well  known  for  their  gania  smoking 
habits,  is  now  a  well  recognized  present  day  finding  among  black  male 
laborers.  Indeed,  one  of  our  cases  died  from  acute  pulmonary  embolism 
and  at  autopsy  demonstrated  spontaneous  trombosis  of  the  pulmonary 
artery.  In  the  autopsy  room  in  general,  the  barrel-shaped,  emphysema- 
tons,  chest,  is  a  common  finding  in  Rastafarian  cultists.  This  raises 
questions  of  their  smoking  habits  and  the  possible  action  of  toxic  metab- 
olities  from  ganja  acting  on  the  pulmonary  parenchyma,  a  point  which 
was  substantiated  by  one  of  yesterday's  speakers,  Dr.  Leuchten- 
berger. 

2.    G-I   TRACT   INVOLVEMENT 

In  the  small  sample  series  two  cases  previously  published  had 
radiologically  proven  duodenal  ulcers  also  raising  the  question  of 
toxic  metabolites,  vagal  stimulation,  or  a  parallel  to  the  excretion  of 
morphine  in  the  stomach. 

Further  observation  suggests  a  greater  association  between  duo- 
denal ulcer  and  ganja  smokers,  attending  the  clinic,  than  coincidence 
would  allow.  Detailed  studies  of  gastric  fluid  and  gastroscopic 
studies  are  clearly  indicated. 


151 


3.    METABOLIC    EFFECTS 


Among  chronic  ganja  smokers  obesity  is  never  seen.  The  Rasta- 
fari  cultists  fully  substantiate  this  point  of  the  slim  body  build. 
Constant  craving  for  sugar  cane,  highly  sweetened  beverages,  or 
sweets  is  noted  in  many  habitual  smokers  and  cultists  after  smoking 
ganja.  Many  smokers  also  allege  an  increase  of  appetite.  Persistent 
observations  on  our  part  of  the  absence  of  obesity  suggest  some  in- 
terference with  the  metabolic  pathways  for  depositing  body  fat. 
The  PBI  studied  in  a  small  series  to  date  has  not  indicated  thyroid 
hyperactivity  and  comment  was  made  yesterday  by  one  of  the 
speakers  on  this  interference  with  fatty  metabolism. 

4.    CNS    CHANGES 

Ganja  has  long  been  regarded  both  by  the  laity  and  the  profession 
as  a  cause  of  psychosis  in  Jamaica.  The  unrivaled,  accumulated,  ex- 
perience of  Cooke,  Roves,  and  Williams,  who  were  in  recent  years 
senior  medical  officers  at  the  Bellevue  Hospital,  in  Kingston,  Ja- 
maica, fully  substantiates  this.  The  observations  also  of  Prince, 
Greenfield,  and  others  corroborate  this  view.  There  is  also  the  Moroc- 
can report  of  Benabud.  It  is  a  common  experience  in  my  wards,  three  to 
six  cases  per  year  of  ganja  psychosis  being  referred  to  the  psychiatry 
clinic.  This  was  noted  in  my  preliminary  report  on  ganja  smoking 
in  Jamaica.  My  experience  can  be  readily  duplicated  in  hospitals 
around  Jamaica.  It  is  noteworthy  that  a  survey  in  a  village  of 
relatively  well  peasant  farmers,  for  instance,  might  be  misleading. 

An  incidence  of  20  percent  impotence  as  a  presenting  feature 
among  males  who  have  smoked  ganja  for  5  or  more  years,  was  re- 
ported by  me  earlier.  Several  colleagues  in  private  practice  have 
been  alerted  to  this  and  tend  to  corroborate  my  view  of  this  prob- 
lem. The  difficulties  of  assessing  this  symptom  are  self-evident.  The 
likely  involvement  of  the  autonomic  pathways  awaits  neuropath- 
ologies 1  studies. 

Personality  changes  among  ganja  smokers  and  members  of  the 
Rastafari  cult  are  a  matter  of  common  observation  in  Jamaica.  The 
apathy,  retreat  from  reality,  the  incapacity  or  unwillingness  for  sus- 
tained concentration,  and  the  lifetime  of  drifting  are  best  summed 
up  in  the  "amotivational  syndrome"  of  McGlothin  &  West. 

Many  smokers  come  to  no  grief,  as  it  were,  after  several  years  of 
ganja  use.  On  this  basis  some  workers,  and  the  media  make  a 
fashionable  virtue  of  its  use;  they  recommend  it  as  a  panacea  for 
poverty,  or  a  benevolent  alternative  to  alcohol.  This  view  is,  at  best, 
half  truth.  Common  observation  in  Jamaica  is  that  ganja  smoking 
can  be  a  catalyst  for  cataclysmic  change  for  ill  in  the  life  of  a  ganja 
smoker.  The  Rastafarians  to  whom  I  have  referred  earlier  in  par- 
ticular typify  this  picture.  Those  interested  can  refer  to  the  work 
of  Smith,  Augier  and  others,  and  Kitzinger,  previously  published. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  documented  some  laboratory  data  which  I 
shall  ask  to  be  incorporated  in  the  record,  but  I  draw  particular 
attention  to  hypoglycaemia,  that  is  to  say,  a  fall  in  the  normal 
blood  sugar  which  was  seen  in  three  of  eight  cases,  1  hour  after  smoking 
25  grams  of  dried  ganja  leaf  in  a  standard  pipe. 


152 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  this  a  major  drop  in  blood  sugar  level? 

Dr.  Hall.  Below  the  normal  accepted  level. 

Mr.  Martin.  But  a  substantial  drop? 

Dr.  Hall.  Yes,  of,  say,  from  120  before  smoking  to  levels  of  50 
or  less  within  an  hour  of  smoking  25  grams  of  the  dried  leaf. 

Mr.  Martin.  Within  1  hour  of  smoking? 

Dr.  Hall.  Precisely. 

May  I  continue? 

Mr.  Martin.  Please. 

Dr.  Hall.  This  raises  a  question  of  the  relevance  of  repeated 
hypoglycaemia  to  personality  changes  and  psychoses  well  docu- 
mented by  others. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  dilemma  facing  most  societies  regarding  the 
legalized  or  uninhibited  use  of  ganja  is  created,  in  my  view,  by 
vested  interests  and  the  media.  In  my  country,  Jamaica,  many  people 
do  smoke  ganja,  I  repeat,  without  apparent  ill  effects.  There  is, 
however,  a  growing  number  of  young  adults  especially  who  are  being 
pushed  over  the  edge  of  the  abyss,  and  are  hanging  in  there  in  a 
world  of  chemically-induced,  drug-induced,  fantasy  and  nonpro- 
ductivity. 

One  can  visualize  at  the  national  level  ganja  smoking  changing 
the  life  style  of  a  society,  undermining  economic  productivity,  and 
impairing  a  country's  military  effectiveness. 

One  can  visualize  too,  a  totalitarian  regime  promoting  it  as  an 
emotional  escape  valve,  rather  like  institutionalized  festivities. 

In  Jamaica  the  vast  silent  majority  recognize  all  these  points  and 
are  not  confused.  They  recognize  the  liaison  and  involvement  with 
crime  both  local  and  international. 

In  my  view  they  are  determined  to  preserve  the  Judeo-Christian 
ethic  of  pleasurable  reward  for  hard  work  and  the  competitive, 
achievement-oriented  value  system. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Hall,  for  your  remarks. 

Mr.  Martin.  Dr.  Hall,  as  you  know,  there  is  a  widespread  im- 
pression in  our  country  that  almost  the  entire  Jamaican  population 
is  caught  up  in  an  endemic  marihuana  binge — that  all  Jamaicans 
are  on  ganja. 

Your  statement  suggests  this  is  very  much  exaggerated.  If  I 
understood  you  correctly,  you  estimate  the  percentage  of  the  popula- 
tion on  ganja  to  be  somewhere  between  3  percent  and  9  percent, 
based  on  your  continuing  study  of  the  hospital  population. 

Dr.  Hall.  That  is  correct,  sir. 

The  impression  of  widespread  use  is  created  mainly  by  the  public- 
ity given  to  visitors  from  North  America  who  have  found  Jamaica 
a  "loous  classicus"  for  obtaining  and  smoking  ganja. 

Mr.  Martin.  The  tourists  have  no  trouble  getting  ganja  and  mari- 
huana in  Jamaica? 

Dr.  Hall.  None  whatever,  and  frequently  get  into  trouble  with  the 
law. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  ganja  has  no  serious  trouble  getting  from 
Jamaica  into  the  United  States?  As  you  know,  there  is  an  increasing 
amount  coming  into  our  country. 


153 

Dr.  Hall.  There  is  a  well-established  traffic. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Incidentally,  on  that  question,  Dr.  Hall,  my 
State  is  the  State  of  Florida.  One  of  the  principal  sources  of  flow 
into  Florida  is  Jamaica,  this  is  a  well-known  fact.  Is  your  govern- 
ment doing  anything  to  interdict  this  flow  of  marihuana  into 
Florida? 

Dr.  Hall.  Yes,  I  am  in  a  position  to  speak  of  that.  The  Govern- 
ment is  taking  the  most  stringent  measures  to  intercept  international 
shipments  coming  by  private  aircraft  and  presently  there  are  some 
very  serious  cases  before  the  courts  at  this  moment. 

Senator  Gurney.  They  are  making  a  good  effort  to  try  to  stop 
this? 
Dr.  Hall.  Very  much  so,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Martin.  Jamaican  marihuana  is  pretty  good  stuff,  as  they 
say.  It  is  supposed  to  be  substantially  stronger  than  Mexican  mari- 
huana, is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Hall.  That  has  generally  been  said,  but  I  have  myself  no 
figure  as  to  the  quantum  of  THC  in  our  ganja. 

Mr.  Martin.  The  fact  that  Jamaica  has  a  relatively  large  popula- 
tion of  chronic  smokers,  perhaps  not  as  an  overall  percentage  but 
you  have  a  population  of  chronic  smokers  going  back  many  years, 
this  affords  certain  advantages  in  studying  the  long-term  impact  of 
chronic  marihuana  smoking? 
Dr.  Hall.  Decidedly  so. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  may  be  aware,  Dr.  Hall,  of  a  recent  study  which 
has  been  reported  on  in  the  American  press,  a  study  done  in  Jamaica 
funded  by  the  National  Institute  for  Mental  Health.  This  study,  as 
you  know,  came  up  with  the  nearest  thing  to  a  clean  bill  of  health 
that  has  yet  been  published — no  change  in  functional  ability,  no 
change  in  respiratory  function,  no  change  in  chromosomes — the 
nonsmokers  suffered  more  chromosome  damage  than  the  smokers — no 
change  in  brainwave  patterns,  nothing  at  all. 
Do  you  know  anything  about  this  study? 
Dr.  Hall.  Yes,  I  am  familiar  with  it. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  the  implications  of  this  study — well,  from  what 
you  have  said  here,  the  implications  certainly  do  not  conform  to  your 
own  experience  with  thousands  of  marihuana  smokers? 
Dr.  Hall.  That  is  correct. 

The  study  to  which  you  refer  does  not  have  the  general  support 
of  experienced  clinicians  and  other  workers  in  the  field.  We  believe 
that  the  selection  with  which  the  study  was  done  was  faulty  and  that 
in  regard  to  the  reported  absence  of  any  change  in  the  chromosome 
pattern  that  their  technique  was  faulty  and  that  certainly  as  regards 
the  statement  that  there  was  no  respiratory  effect,  it  is  unfounded. 

Mr.  Martin.  From  your  experience  and  contacts  you  believe  that 
the  great  majority  of  doctors  in  Jamaica  who  have  had  actual  ex- 
perience with   marihuana   smokers — ganja   smokers — are   convinced 
that  it  has  a  substantial  negative  effect? 
Dr.  Hall.  That  is  correct. 
Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much. 
I  have  no  further  questions. 


154 

Senator  Gurnet.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  have  no  questions,  Mr.  Chairman,  but  I  respect- 
fully suggest  that  the  study  which  was  the  subject  of  the  last  ques- 
tion has  not  been  identified  for  the  record.  It  is  not  the  usual  thing, 
as  the  Chair  knows,  for  the  committee  to  shoot  arrows  into  the  air. 
If  the  witness  credits  a  study,  the  record  ought  to  show  what  the 
study  is. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Could  you  identify  the  study,  Dr.  Hall? 

Dr.  Hall.  The  study  about  which  I  was  speaking  was  a  study 
mounted  by  Professor  Beaubrun,  Vera  Rubin  and  Comitas. 

I  believe  they  were  funded  by  one  of  your  national  agencies. 

Senator  Gurnet.  When  was  the  study  made? 

Dr.  Hall.  It  was  reported  in  1972  and  serialized  in  our  national 
press. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Do  you  know  how  long  they  spent  on  this  study  ? 

Dr.  Hall.  Some  months  in  1971. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Hall. 

Dr.  Hall.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Our  next  two  witnesses  are  Dr.  Harold  Kolan- 
sky  and  Dr.  William  Moore  of  Philadelphia,  who  are  psychiatrists 
who  have  worked  as  a  team  in  studying  the  effects  of  marihuana 
chronic  users  and  they  have  coauthored  a  series  of  articles  in  the 
medical  journals  on  this  subject. 

As  I  understand  they  are  going  to  testify  as  a  team  today. 

There  wasn't  time  for  the  committee  to  receive  your  biographical 
statements,  Dr.  Kolansky  and  Dr.  Moore,  so  I  wonder  if  for  the 
record,  you  could  state  your  qualifications. 

TESTIMONY   OP  DR.   H.   KOLANSKY   AND   DR.   WILLIAM   MOORE, 

PHILADELPHIA,  PA. 

Dr.  Kolanskt.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  First  of  all,  would  you  state  your  name? 

Dr.  Kolanskt.  My  name  is  Harold  Kolansky,  and  I  have  a  doctor 
of  medicine  degree  from  Georgetown  University  School  of  Medicine 
in  this  city,  1948. 

I  interned  at  the  Walter  Reed  Army  Hospital  1948  to  1949,  and 
had  residency  in  psychiatry  at  the  Veterans  Hospital  in  the  Phila- 
delphia area  and  in  several  of  the  medical  schools.  After  the  1949 
period  I  also  served  in  the  armed  services  as  a  captain,  and  psy- 
chiatrist and  chief  of  psychiatry  for  the  Fourth  Field  Army 
Hospital  in  Korea  during  the  Korean  conflict,  and  was  at  that  time 
also  chief  psychiatrist  to  the  Eighth  Army  Surgeon. 

Subsequently,  I  was  at  the  Albert  Einstein  Medical  Center  in 
Philadelphia  while  also  in  private  practice  from  the  year  1952  and 
continued  in  the  private  practice  of  psychiatry  and  child  psychiatry 
and  psychoanalysis  since  that  time. 

I  was  director  of  child  psychiatry  from  1955  until  1969  at  the 
Albert  Einstein  Medical  Center  and  was  chairman  of  the  depart- 
ment of  psychiatry  there  from  1968  to  1969. 

I  have  been  twice  president  of  the  Regional  Council  of  Child 
Psychiatry,  most  recently  a  year  ago,  and  that  embraced  the  Penn- 


155 

sylvania,  southeastern  New  Jersey  and  Delaware  communities  of 
child  psychiatrists,  and  currently  am  chairman  of  the  Continuing 
Education  Committee  and  a  council  member  of  the  American 
Academy  of  Child  Psychiatry.  I  am  certified  in  psychiatry  and  in 
child  psychiatry  by  the  American  Board  of  Psychiatry  and  Neu- 
rology and  have  the  equivalent  of  certification  through  the  American 
Psychoanalytic  Association  in  both  child  and  adult  psychoanalysis. 

I  am  currently  associate  professor  of  psychiatry  at  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  School  of  Medicine,  and  simultaneously  chairman 
of  the  Curriculum  Committee  on  Child  Analysis  of  the  Institute 
of  Philadelphia  Association  for  Psychoanalysis  where  I  also  teach. 
In  the  last  9  years  in  the  private  practice  of  psychiatry  and  in 
hospital  work  as  well,  Dr.  Moore  and  I  have  been  collaborating  in 
our  observations  on  marihuana  in  our  practices  with  patients  who 
have  come  to  us  and  we  will  have  more  on  that  in  our  prepared 
statement. 

If  I  may  suggest.  Mr.  Chairman,  Dr.  Moore  would  give  his  back- 
ground and  curriculum,  following  which  Dr.  Moore  would  give  the 
first  half  of  our  prepared  statement  and  then  I  would  give  the 
second  half. 

Senator  Gurxey.  That  is  fine. 

One  other  question,  Doctor,  have  you  been  the  author  or  coauthor 
of  scientific  or  medical  articles  in  your  career? 

Dr.  Kolaxskt.  I  didn't  hear  your  last  word,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Senator  Gurnet.  Have  you  been  the  author  or  coauthor  of  scien- 
tific or  medical  articles  or  papers? 
Dr.  Kolanskt.  Yes,  sir. 

I  have  been  the  author  of  some  40  clinical  and  research  papers  m 
psychiatry,  child  psychiatry,  and  psychoanalysis.  Of  these  five  have 
been  coauthored  with  Dr.  Moore  on  the  subject  of  marihuana. 

One  is  in  press,  four  have  already  been  published,  and  additionally 
Dr.  Moore  and  I  have  collaborated  on  other  subjects  within  the 
field  of  psychiatry  and  psychoanalysis  which  have  been  published. 
Senator  Gurney.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

Dr.  Moore,  would  you  give  your  background  and  qualifications 
and  then  proceed  with  your  statement. 

Dr.  Moore.  I  am  William  T.  Moore,  a  doctor  of  medicine,  gradu- 
ated from  the  University  of  Pittsburgh  in  1947.  I  have  been  a 
practicing  psychiatrist  and  psychoanalyst  since  1950.  I  am  certified 
in  both  adult*  and  child  psychiatry  by  the  American  Board  of  Neu- 
rology and  Psychiatry.  I  am  a  qualified  psychoanalyst,  in  the 
practice  and  treatment  of  children  and  adults  as  well  as  study  in 
clinical  research. 

I've  been  on  the  full  faculty  of  the  Institute  of  Philadelphia  As- 
sociation of  Psychoanalysis  since  1960.  I  have  been  the  director  of 
training  for  the  past  5  years  for  the  division  of  child  analysis  at  the 
Institute  of  Philadelphia  Association  for  Psychoanalysis,  I  have 
been  associate  professor  in  child  psychiatry  in  the  Hahnemann 
Medical  College  for  13  years  up  until  1972,  and  presently  associate 
professor  in  clinical  psychiatry  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania 
School  of  Medicine. 


156 

I  have  coauthored  and  authored  a  number  of  scientific  papers, 
some  with  Dr.  Kolansky  and  some  alone.  Since  1964,  I  have  been 
quite  intensely  interested  in  and  actively  studying  as  well  as  treating 
adolescents  and  young  adults  involved  in  drug  use  and  particularly 
involved  in  marihuana  use  and  abuse. 

I  have  been  particularly  interested  in  the  psychological  effects  of 
adolescent  involvement,  and  the  mental  functioning  in  young  adults 
as  a  result  of  marihuana  use. 

Mr.  Martin.  Dr.  Moore,  may  I  suggest  that  you  move  the  micro- 
phone a  bit  closer  and  raise  your  voice  a  bit  so  the  audience  can  hear 
you? 

Dr.  Moore.  Closer,  like  that  ? 

Mr.  Martin.  Yes. 

Dr.  Moore.  I  have  been  in  active  clinical  study  with  Dr.  Harold 
Kolansky  for  the  past  10  years  on  this  marihuana  issue. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  members  of  the  subcommittee,  we  are  pleased  to 
present  a  summary  of  our  psychiatric  findings  in  those  who  use 
marihuana. 

You  are  already  familiar  with  Dr.  Olav  J.  Braenden's  work  and 
statement  to  this  subcommittee  on  September  18,  1972.  Based  on  his 
laboratory,  and  coordinating  work  for  the  United  Nations,  and  on 
his  direct  contact  with  Drs.  Paton,  Rafaelson,  Miras,  and  Salamink, 
all  of  whom  were  doing  current  research  on  cannabis,  he  stated  that 
among  scientists  working  in  the  field,  the  consensus  was  that  can- 
nabis is  dangerous.  He  also  said  that  as  more  scientific  data  accumu- 
lated, the  knowledge  of  the  potential  dangers  increases. 

He  indicated  that  contrary  to  former  views,  there  are  at  least  50 
substances  in  cannabis — and  he  implied  that  many  of  them  could 
be  toxic.  He  quoted  the  work  of  Dr.  Campbell  and  his  colleagues, 
who  showed  rather  definitively  the  result  of  cerebral  atrophy  in 
young,  chronic  marihuana  smokers.  We  would  add  that  the  skull 
X-rays  showing  the  enlarged  ventricles — due  to  atrophy — of  these 
patients  in  the  Campbell  article,  are  vividly  dramatic.  We  would 
also  like  to  add  that,  the  British  journal,  Lancet — December  4, 
1971 — editorialized  Campbell's  work,  and  said. 

The  paper  by  Dr.  Campbell  and  his  colleagues  in  this  issue  deserves  careful 
scrutiny  .  .  .  The  atrophy  is  significant,  and  the  difference  from  the  normal  air 
encephalogram  entirely  justifies  the  authors'  description  and  diagnosis. 

We  concur  with  Dr.  Braenden  and  the  other  investigators,  and  are 
convinced  that  marihuana  smoking  carries  enormous  risks  of  phys- 
ical and  mental  damage.  In  our  four  published  and  a  fifth  currently 
in  press  clinical  papers  on  marihuana  use  we  have  spelled  out  the 
psychiatric  findings,  and  offered  an  hypothesis  on  its  toxic  effects  on 
the  brain. 

In  an  editorial  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion— JAMA,  October  2,  1972,  volume  222  1 — concerning  our  work, 
the  editor  said. 

Uncertainty  about  the  potential  dangers  of  marihuana  usage  prevails  among 
physicians  and  others.  There  are  some  *  *  *  who  contend  that  the  drug's 
psychotropic  effects  are  no  more  serious — perhaps  less  serious — than  those  of 
alcohol,  and  that,  since  alcoholic  beverages  are  sold  throughout  the  United 
States,  sale  of  marihuana  should  be  legalized. 


157 

In  this  issue  of  the  Journal  p.  35,  Kolansky  and  Moore  report 
observations  on  13  patients  who  had  smoked  marihuana  or  hashish 
intensively  for  periods  from  16  months  to  6  years.  All  manifested 
severe  symptoms  of  cerebral  toxic  reaction  that  disappeared  within  3 
to  24  months  after  cessation  of  drug  use. 

Spokesmen  who  espouse  tolerance  toward  "occasional"  or  "moder- 
ate" use  of  marihuana  should  be  mindful  of  the  possibility  that,  for 
whatever  reasons,  occasional  may  become  "frequent"  and  moderate 
may  become  "intensive,"  with  forbidding;  consequences.  Moreover, 
if  sale  of  marihuana  were  legalized,  would  hashish — a  much  more 
potent  form  of  cannabis  be  far  behind  ?  *  *  * 

If  marihuana  ever  were  given  the  same  legal  status  as  alcoholic 
beverages,  nothing  could  be  said  except  "Buyer  beware." 

Exactly  3  years  ago  today  on  May  17,  1971,  we  presented  a  report 
to  the  National  Commission  on  Marihuana  and  Drug  Abuse.  At  that 
time  we  presented  our  findings  on  a  5-year  clinical  study  of  38 
patients,  ages  13  to  24  showing  that  marihuana  alone  caused  serious 
psychological  and  neurological  effects.  We  told  the  Commission  that 
marihuana  and  hashish  have  a  chemical  effect  that  produces  a  brain 
syndrome  marked  by  distortion  of  perceptions  and  reality. 

This  leads  to  an  early  impairment  of  judgment,  a  diminished  at- 
tention and  concentration  span,  a  slowing  of  time  sense,  difficulty 
with  verbalization,  and  a  loss  of  thought  continuity  characterized 
by  a  flow  of  speech  punctuated  with  non  sequiturs,  which  leaves  the 
listeners  puzzled.  In  time,  the  chronic  smoker  develops  a  detached 
look  as  decompensation  of  his  ego  or  character  occurs. 

In  the  last  9  years  we  have  seen  hundreds  of  patients  who  have 
suffered  psychiatric  and  neurological  symptoms  as  a  result  of  mari- 
huana use,  and  have  described  the  findings  in  almost  60  of  these 
patients,  in  our  publications. 

Senator  Gurney.  You  mentioned  decompensation  of  his  ego  oc- 
curs. Would  it  be  better  perhaps  for  a  layman  like  me  to  say  the 
disintegration  of  himself  as  a  human  being? 

Dr.  Moore.  A  disintegration  of  his  character. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you. 

Dr.  Moore.  Although  we  described  the  deleterious  effects  of  can- 
nabis use  on  adolescent  personality  development  in  psychological 
terms  when  we  spoke  to  the  National  Commission,  even  then  we 
stressed  our  clinical  hypothesis  that  psychic  changes  were  a  result  of 
a  chemical  damage  to  the  cerebral  cortical  cells. 

We  further  indicated  that  the  symptoms  described  by  us  should 
not  be  confused  with  the  usual  psychological  phenomena,  character- 
ized as  either  developmental  changes  or  psychological  aberrations. 
All  the  individuals  studied  showed  some  uniformity  of  symptom 
response  which  to  us  implied  that  a  common  toxic  agent — cannabis — 
was  responsible  for  the  observed  reaction.  We  also  considered  the 
possibility  that  similar  reactions  might  occur  in  any  one  who  inten- 
sively used  cannabis  for  an  extended  period  of  time.  We  said  at  that 
time: 

During  tlte  past  six  years  we  have  seen  a  clinical  entity  different  from  the 
routine  syndromes   usually  seen   in  adolescents  and  young  adults.  Long  and 


158 

careful  diagnostic  evaluation  convinced  us  that  this  entity  is  a  toxic  reaction 
in  the  central  nervous  system  due  to  regular  use  of  marihuana  and  hashish. 

Contrary  to  what  is  frequently  reported,  we  have  found  the  effect  of  mari- 
huana to  be  not  merely  that  of  a  mild  intoxicant  which  causes  a  slight 
exaggeration  of  usual  adolescent  behavior,  but  a  specific  and  separate  clinical 
syndrome  unlike  any  other  variation  of  the  abnormal  manifestations  of  adoles- 
cence. We  feel  there  should  be  no  confusion,  because  regardless  of  the  under- 
lying psychological  difficulty,  mental  changes — hallmarked  by  disturbed  aware- 
ness of  the  self,  apathy,  confusion  and  poor  reality  testing — will  occur  in  an 
individual  who  smokes  marihuana  on  a  regular  basis  whether  he  is  a  normal 
adolescent,  an  adolescent  in  conflict,  or  a  severely  neurotic  individual. 

We  were  very  disappointed  in  the  ambivalent  report  made  by  the 
National  Commission,  after  2  years  of  hearings  and  study,  in  which 
inadequate  attention  was  paid  to  the  clear  evidence  presented  by  in- 
vestigators to  the  effect  that  cannabis  is  retained  in  brain  and  other 
tissue,  is  toxic  and  may  cause  irreversible  brain  damage.  We  also 
believe  that  the  right  of  the  public  to  be  educated  to  these  toxic 
effects  is  long  overdue,  and  that  the  Commission  failed  to  organize 
this  effort. 

With  increasing  frequency,  we  were  seeing  adults  who  also  smoked 
marihuana,  and  who  developed  changes  in  personality  believed  to  be 
due  to  toxicity  we  described  in  JAMA  on  October  2,  1972 

Mr.  Martin.  That  is  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical 
Association  ? 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes,  sir. 

We  described  13  adults  between  the  ages  of  20  and  41  years,  all  of 
whom  smoked  cannabis  products  intensively — 3  to  10  times  per 
week — for  a  period  of  16  months  to  6  years.  They  all  demonstrated 
symptoms  that  simultaneously  began  with  cannabis  use  and  disap- 
peared within  3  to  24  months  after  cessation  of  drug  use. 

In  addition,  a  correlation  of  symptoms  was  observed  in  relation 
to  the  duration  and  frequency  of  smoking.  When  coupled  with  the 
stereotyped  nature  of  the  symptoms  regardless  of  psychological 
predisposition,  a  consideration  of  biochemical  and  structural  changes 
in  the  central  nervous  system — possibly  cerebral  cortex — as  a  result  of 
intensive  cannabis  use  seemed  to  be  in  order.  We  said  it  would  appear 
that  the  present  medical  and  public  approach  to  education  regarding 
the  danger  of  marihuana  use  should  undergo  some  reassessment. 

In  that  article  we  tentatively  classified  our  findings  as  follows : 

1.  Biochemical  change.  Those  cases  in  which  symptomatology 
indicated  less  chronic  or  less  intensive  use  of  cannabis  or  both,  and 
the  patients  developed  total  remission  of  symptoms  within  a  6-month 
period  following  the  termination  of  drug  use. 

2.  The  second  group  would  be  those  with  biochemical  change  with 
suspected  structural  change.  Those  cases  in  which  symptomatology 
indicated  chronic  intensive  cannabis  use;  then  upon  termination  of 
drug  use,  only  partial  remission  of  symptoms  were  evident  after  6 
months  but  no  residual  symptoms  were  found  after  9  months. 

3.  Biochemical  change  with  possible  structural  change — those  cases 
in  which  symptomatology  indicated  chronic  intensive  cannabis  use; 
then  upon  termination  of  drug  use,  partial  remission  of  svmptoms 
occurred  after  6  months  and  residual  symptoms  were  still  present 
after  9  months  or  more. 


159 

Dr.  Kolansky  will  take  it  from  there. 
Senator  Gurney.  Dr.  Kolansky. 
Dr.  Kolansky.  Thank  you,  Dr.  Moore. 

Amon^  the  symptoms  shown  by  most  of  our  patients,  are  those 
we  described  in  1972. 

With  a  history  of  regular  marihuana  or  hashish  use — 3  to  10  or 
more  times  a  week — the  individual  was  characteristically  apathetic 
and  sluggish  in  mental  and  physical  responses.  There  was  usually  a 
loss  of  interest  in  personal  appearance  and  a  goallessness. 

Considerable  flattening  of  affect — emotion — at  first  gave  an  im- 
pression of  calm  and  well-being  so  that  the  patient  seemed  to  be  at 
peace  with  himself  and  the  world.  This  was  usually  accompanied 
by  his  own  conviction  that  he  had  recently  developed  an  emotional 
maturity  and  insight  that  was  aided  by  or  even  a  result  of  his 
generous  use  of  cannabis.  Having  found  his  "true  self,"  he  claimed 
that  his  aggression,  ambition,  and  life  goals  no  longer  needed  to 
follow  those  of  the  mainstream  of  society.  We  considered  this  to  be 
a  defensive  use  of  denial  and  reaction  formation  in  order  to  avoid 
an  outbreak  of  aggression  due  to  diminished  stability  in  his  person- 
ality organization. 

His  pseudoequanimity  was  easily  disrupted  when  his  personality 
change,  new  philosophies,  and  drug  consumption  were  questioned  by 
old  acquaintances  or  by  family  members.  Also  if  anyone  posed  a 
threat  to  his  supply  of  cannabis  his  peaceful  facade  quickly  gave 
way  to  irritability  or  outbursts  of  irrational  anger  frequently  ac- 
companied by  vituperative  verbal  attack  or  sullen  petulance. 

Many  of  those  we  examined  were  physically  thin  and  often  ap- 
peared so  tired  that  they  simulated  the  weariness  and  resignation  of 
some  of  the  aged.  All  appeared  older  than  their  chronological  age 
by  appearance,  and  an  impression  that  was  sometimes  reinforced  by 
slow  physical  movement.  We  thought  such  slow  motion  resulted  from 
a  combination  of  an  emotional  lethargy  and  a  slowing  of  the  sense 
of  time ;  this  latter  effect  had  been  cited  previously  by  Melges,  et  al., 
as  also  contributing  to  mental  confusion  in  cannabis  smokers. 

Frequently  our  patients  complained  of  tiredness,  sleeping  during 
the  day,  and  wakefulness  at  night  which  seemed  similar  to  the 
reversal  of  sleep  cycle  referred  to  by  Dr.  Campbell  and  others  as  a 
symptom  of  cerebral  organicity. 

Mr.  Martin.  By  organicity  you  mean  organic  damage? 
Dr.  Kolansky.  Organic  damage  in  the  brain. 
Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

Dr.  Kolansky.  The  "symptoms  of  mental  confusion,  slowed  time 
sense.  Difficulty  with  recent  memory,  and  the  incapability  of  com- 
pleting thoughts  during  verbal  communication  that  resulted  in  con- 
fused responses,  seemed  to  imply  some  form  of  organic  change  either 
of  an  acute  biochemical  nature  as  noted  in  cases  with  shorter 
histories  of  cannabis  use  or,  one  might  hypothesize,  structural  en- 
cephalopathy when  found  in  cases  with  prolonged  heavy  marihuana 
use. 

Mr.  Martin.  Again  encephalopathy  means  pathological  damage  to 
the  brain  ? 

Dr.  Kolansky.  That  is  correct,  sir. 


160 

We  are  certain  that  these  symptoms  cannot  be  explained  simply 
on  the  basis  of  psychological  predisposition.  Headaches,  also  de- 
scribed by  Campbell  and  his  coworkers  were  common.  In  one  of  our 
cases — not  reported  in  this  series — the  marihuana  syndrome  masked 
a  severe  obsessional  neurosis  that  was  present  before  marihuana  syn- 
drome masked  a  severe  obsessional  neurosis  that  was  present  before 
marihuana  use,  then  reappeared  after  cessation  of  drug  use.  During 
marihuana  toxicity,  his  obsessional  thinking  and  compulsive  be- 
havior were  minimal  and  secondary  to  the  stereotyped  symptoms 
described  above. 

We  said  in  1972  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion: 

The  intensity  of  symptoms  and  the  presence  of  delusional  content  during  use 
of  the  drug  seemed  directly  related  to  the  frequency  and  length  of  time  that 
cannabis  had  been  used.  There  also  seemed  to  be  some  relationship  between 
symptom  intensity  and  the  strength  of  the  drug  that  was  used.  Those  who 
smoked  hashish  seemed  to  be  more  symptomatic.  The  length  of  time  necessary 
for  the  remission  of  symptoms  also  appeared  to  be  directly  related  to  the 
duration  and  frequency  of  smoking. 

In  addition,  the  presence  of  residual  symptoms  9  months  after  the  use  of 
cannabis  was  stopped  showed  some  relationship  of  the  symptom  residual  to  the 
duration  and  frequency  of  exposure. 

Lemberger  and  others  at  the  National  Institute  of  Mental  Health  have  shown 
that  chemical  constituent  delta-9  tetrahydrocannabinol  is  maintained  in  the  brain 
and  other  organs  of  humans  for  up  to  8  days  after  ingestion.  Mclsaac  and  his 
coworkers  in  1971  showed  with  isotope  labeled  cannabis  that  concentration  of 
the  drug  occurred  in  the  frontal  lobes  and  cortice  of  monkeys.  Campbell  and 
his  coworkers  in  1971  have  pointed  out  that  findings  that  indicate  the  fat 
solubility  of  cannabis  derivatives  makes  it  likely  that  the  accumulation  of  this 
drug  in  nervous  tissue  would  thereby  cause  a  cumulative  chemical  effect.  This 
cumulative  effect  seemed  to  be  demonstrated  clinically  by  those  cases  in  this 
report  who  had  relatively  brief  histories  of  smoking  cannabis. 

In  these  individuals  the  biochemical  effect  is  less  likely  to  be  confused  by 
later  structural  change.  During  the  period  of  time  between  cessation  of  drug 
use  and  symptom  remission,  those  symptoms  present  are  probably  due  to  the 
effect  of  accumulated  chemical  effect  rather  than  structural  changes.  In  addi- 
tion, a  number  of  patients,  all  told  of  sometimes  feeling  some  of  the  effects 
of  cannabis  for  several  days  after  their  last  smoke. 

Rosenkrantz,  et  al.,  indicated  that  in  the  brain  tissue  of  rats  examined,  there 
was  a  consistent  severe  loss  of  brain  protein  and  cell  component  RNA  that  play 
basic  roles  in  brain  functioning. 

The  occurrence  of  a  stereotyped  group  of  symptoms  unrelated  to  psycho- 
logical predisposition  in  a  number  of  individuals  following  chronic  and  exten- 
sive cannabis  use  seems  to  us  to  at  least  imply  the  possibility  of  a  similar 
biochemical  application  in  humans.  In  those  cases  where  symptomatology, 
though  diminished,  was  still  present  6  months,  9  months,  and  1  year  after  drug 
withdrawal  raises  an  important  possibility  of  more  permanent  structural 
changes  in  the  cerebral  cortex,  such  as  reported  by  Campbell,  et  al.,  all  of  whom 
smoked  3  or  more  years  and  all  of  whom  showed  radiologic  evidence  of  cerebral 
atrophy. 

In  the  last  2  years,  we  have  seen  much  additional  marihuana 
smoking  in  two  particular  groups — those  in  junior  high  school,  and 
those  in  the  20  to  40  year  group.  In  the  younger  group  our  concern 
for  impairment  of  adolescent  development  is  strong.  We  said  even  in 
1971  in  our  acticle  in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Associa- 
tion, and  I  quote : 

Clearly,  there  is,  in  our  patients,  a  demonstration  of  an  interruption  of 
normal  psychological  adolescent  growth  processes  following  the  use  of  mari- 


161 

huana ;  as  a  consequence,  the  adolescent  may  reach  chronological  adulthood 
without  achieving  adult  mental  functioning  or  emotional  responsiveness. 

One  month  ago,  April  18,  1974,  a  paper  in  the  New  England 
Journal  of  Medicine,  "Depression  of  Plasma  Testosterone  Levels 
After  Chronic  Intensive  Marihuana  Use,"  by  Dr.  Kolodny  and  his 
group  gave  additional  cause  for  concern  in  the  older  age  group,  and  by 
implication  in  the  adolescent  age  group  as  well,  when  the  authors 
described  20  heterosexual  men  18  to  28  years  of  age  who  used  mari- 
huana at  least  4  days  weekly  for  6  or  more  months,  who  showed 
decreased  testosterone  levels  that  were  dose  related.  Six  of  17  men — 
35  percent — showed  a  marked  drop  of  sperm  count,  with  the  count 
being  lowest  in  those  who  smoked  most. 

In  addition  to  temporary  sterility,  these  authors  described  two 
subjects  who  were  also  impotent.  The  authors  caution  about  mari- 
huana use  in  pregnant  women,  since  delta-9  THC  can  cross  the  pla- 
cental barrier,  and  so  possibly  depress  fetal  testosterone  levels  during 
critical  stages  of  sexual  differentiation.  They  also  express  concern 
about  a  delay  in  a  completion  of  puberty  in  the  prepubertal  young- 
ster who  smokes. 

In  concluding  our  prepared  statement,  we  would  like  to  para- 
phrase and  add  to  a  series  of  recommendations  offered  to  the  original 
National  Commission  on  Marihuana  and  Drug  Abuse  3  years  ago. 
In  our  opinion  these  recommendations  are  even  more  applicable 
today. 

First,  on  education :  The  National  Institute  of  Mental  Health,  and 
other  responsible  mental  health  agencies,  and  medical  associations 
should  coordinate  a  large-scale  educational  effort  to  inform  the 
public  of  the  serious  implications  of  marihuana  use.  The  press  and 
the  networks  can  aid  immensely  in  this  effort.  There  is  at  this  time 
enough  information  to  bring  equivocation  to  a  halt.  The  public  can 
learn  that  marihuana  alone  causes  serious  psychological  and  neu- 
rological effects. 

In  our  view,  unless  the  marihuana  problem  is  brought  under  better 
control,  it  is  unlikely  that  we  will  be  able  to  influence  effectively  the 
hard-drug  problem  and  the  growing  number  of  individuals  who 
show  long  lasting  and  even  permanent  effects  of  damage  due  to  mari- 
huana smoking.  All  schools,  particularly  elementary  schools,  should 
introduce  or  improve  programs  of  instruction  on  marihuana  to  aid 
preventive  efforts.  Measures  to  control  the  flow  of  marihuana  must 
be  increased. 

Regarding  research:  Further  research  on  the  neurological  effects 
of  marihuana  in  humans  should  be  continued,  as  should  psychophar- 
macological  effects  on  animals  and  man.  Additional  clinical  studies 
should  be  reported. 

In  view  of  the  seriousness  of  chronic  marihuana  cough,  respiratory 
studies  should  be  continued  to  determine  marihuana's  effects  on  other 
body  systems,  including  circulatory,  renal,  and  digestive,  hormonal 
and  reproductive. 

There  is  a  need  for  continuing  research  on  all  quantitative  and 
qualitative  aspects  of  the  effect  of  marihuana  on  the  body  system. 

Psychoanalytic  and  psychiatric  research  on  the  interferences  in 
mental  function,  education,  and  development  should  continue. 


162 

Studies  on  recurrence  of  marihuana  effects  should  be  carried  out. 

Regarding  legalization  and  issues  of  public  health:  We  view 
marihuana  to  be  a  public  health  hazard.  We  also  believe  that  tne 
Government  has  a  role  in  protecting  public  health.  Therefore,  logic- 
ally the  Government  should  not  legalize  marihuana  and  should  con- 
tinue to  prevent  the  importing,  manufacturing,  advertising,  and  sale 
of  all  cannabis  products. 

Many  individuals  notable  in  fields  other  than  medicine  have  ad- 
vocated legalization  of  the  sale  of  cannabis.  Their  opinions  are  not 
based  on  the  clinical  examination  of  those  who  use  marihuana,  but 
on  hearsay,  questionnaires,  testimonials,  and  a  misapplication  of 
knowledge.  They  do  a  disservice  to  our  young. 

Distinguished  members  of  the  subcommittee,  this  completes  our 
formal  testimony  and  we  will  be  happy  to  entertain  questions. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Sir,  may  I  ask  one  or  two  questions  about  what 
you  two  have  just  read  ? 

You  told  of  a  man  with  a  severe  obsessional  neurosis  who,  during 
or  immediately  after  smoking,  while  he  had  marihuana  toxicity, 
showed  minimal  symptoms  of  obsessional  thinking  and  compulsive 
behavior  and  symptoms  which  were  secondary  as  to  what  you  called 
the  stereotyped  marihuana  symptoms. 

I  am  not  clear  and  I  think  it  would  be  helpful  if  the  record  were 
clear.  Of  the  obsessional  neurosis  in  the  stereotyped  marihuana 
symptoms  which  is  preferable  if  there  is  any  preferable  ? 

Dr.  Kolansky.  Mr.  Counsel,  may  I  turn  that  question  over  to  Dr. 
Moore  since  that  patient  was  a  patient  of  Dr.  Moore's  ? 

Dr.  Moore.  Actually  the  purpose  of  mentioning  that  is  that  we 
have  so  frequently  found  individuals  who  would  appear  for  psy- 
chiatric evaluation  would  have  the  stereotyped  group  of  symptoms 
that  we  felt  had  grown  to  be  so  typically  marihuana  syndrome  and 
after  we  would  encourage  the  patients  to  stop  smoking  and  to  com- 
pletely rid  themselves  of  drug  use  we  found  that  they  would  develop 
old  neurotic  patterns. 

I  would  think  that  of  the  two,  if  you  press  me  as  to  which  would 
be  better,  I  think  it  might  be  better  to  be  neurotic  than  it  would  be 
to  have  organic  brain  damage  or  structural  change  as  a  result  of 
chronic  marihuana  use. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Doctor,  I  did  not  understand  that  you  testified 
that  this  man  was  not  neurotic,  but  simply  that  his  system  were 
overridden  by  the  marihuana  syndrome. 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  He  was  obsessionally  neurotic  all  the  time  ? 

Dr.  Moore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  He  did  have  what  you  might  call  an  apparent 
remission  because  it  was  overriden  by  the  sysmptoms,  but  it  was  not 
a  true  remission,  was  it? 

Dr.  Moore.  No,  it  was  not  a  true  remission,  but  because  of  the 
change  in  his  whole  method  of  operation  in  life  duo  to  the  marihuana 
use,  it  was  no  longer  obvious  to  the  world  nor  to  himself. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  it  fair  then  to  say  that  marihuana  warps  and  it 
will  warp  even  a  man  who  is  already  warped — it  superimposes  its 
own  warp? 


163 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes,  sir,  I  would  say  that.  I  would  say  it  is  an  organic 
injury  on  an  already  psychological  insult. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  one  or  two  other  questions. 

Would  you  prefer  that  I  defer  them  until 

Senator  Gurnet.  Go  right  ahead,  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  You  told  us  of  slow  motion  resulting  from  a  com- 
bination of  an  emotional  lethargy  and  slowing  of  the  sense  of  time. 
Am  I  correct  in  understanding  that  is  a  case  when  slow  seemed  fast 
to  the  subject? 

Dr.  Kolansky.  Often  times  there  is  a  distortion  mentally  of  the 
sense  of  time  in  the  marihuana  smoker.  Patients,  one  patient,  for 
example,  told  me  of  an  experience  of  beginning  to  smoke  at  4  o'clock 
one  afternoon  and  he  knew  that  because  he  had  just  looked  at  his 
watch  because  a  companion  had  asked  him  the  time,  and  the  next 
thing  he  knew,  though  he  said  he  was  not  asleep,  his  Avatch  registered 
as  9  o'clock  in  the  evening.  He  thought  only  a  very  short  period  of 
time  had  elapsed,  and  he  was  startled  to  find  that  some  5  hours  had 
elapsed,  so  that  is  one  aspect  of  the  distortion  of  time  that  goes  on. 

But  we  were  also  describing  a  kind  of  slow  motion  movement  and 
thinking  and  lack  of  alertness  that  has  perhaps  an  additional  im- 
plication which  to  us  has  an  organic  ring  in  the  sense  that  the  indi- 
vidual cannot  really,  cannot  continue  to  function  in  a  steadily  orga- 
nized and  time-related  fashion. 

Often  that  individual  is  not  aware  of  that  slowing  of  effort,  of 
time,  of  thinking. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  had  a  question  just  on  that  point  to  follow  this, 
but  to  complete  this  question,  did  you  ever  find  any  instance  of  a 
change  in  the  time  sense  the  other  way,  where  marihuana  appeared 
to  accelerate  the  time  sense  so  that  to  the  smoker  everything  seemed 
to  be  very  slow  or  dreamy? 

Dr.  Moore.  I  could  give  a  clinical  example  that  would  pretty  much, 
from  what  I  have  seen,  prove  the  opposite. 

A  young  individual  who  was  driving  down  one  of  the  expressways 
had  to  gradually  keep  over  to  the  right-hand  side  because  he  felt  that 
the  traffic  was  moving  faster  than  he  could  keep  track  of  mentally.  In 
other  words,  he  felt  that  the  external  world  was  moving  more  rapidly 
than  he  could  handle.  Finally,  he  became  so  anxiety-ridden,  so  ter- 
rified that  he  pulled  over  to  the  side  of  the  road  and  waited  for  a 
period  of  time  until  he  felt  safe  enough  to  pull  back  out  into  the  flow 
of  traffic,  until  he  could  get  off  of  the  expressway. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  That  is  again  a  slowing  of  the  time-sense. 

Dr.  Moore.  I  feel  that  in  one  of  the  things  that  contributes  to  the 
slowing  of  the  time-sense  is  the  inability  of  the  individual  to  coordi- 
nate things  as  rapidly  as  he  might  be  able  to  without  the  chemical 
effect. 

In  other  words,  as  things  happen  ordinarily,  an  individual  can 
connect  those  things  and  move  right  along  with  it. 

I  think  with  the  chronic  use  of  cannabis  something  happens.  He 
is  not  able  to  hold  on  to  all  of  the  observations  and  perceptions,  syn- 
thesize them  as  rapidly  and  then  act  upon  them.  He  has  to  slow  down. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Well,  if  a  man's  time-sense  slows  and  he  moves  in 


164 

what  is  to  him  a  habitual  rate,  he  will  actually  be  moving  to  the  ob- 
jective viewer  much  slower  than  usual,  will  he  not? 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  And  this  is  what  you  say  happens  with  the  mari- 
huana smoker? 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  It  does  not  actually  speed  up  their  time-sense  so 
that  they  have  more  time  to  see  what  goes  on.  It  is  exactly  the  reverse. 

Dr.  Moore.  But  they  report  the  opposite. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  But  they  think  that  they  are  seeing  movement,  is 
that  right? 

Dr.  Moore.  That  is  right. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Now  that  brings  me  to  the  earlier  mention  that  you 
made  of  this. 

You  spoke  of  the  flattening  of  affect,  giving  it  first  an  impression 
of  calm  and  well-being  and  accompanied  by  the  smoker's  own  con- 
viction that  he  had  recently  developed  an  emotional  maturity  and 
insight.  And  his  conclusion  is  that  his  drive  and  ambition  and  life 
goals  no  longer  needed  to  follow  those  of  the  mainstream  of  society. 

Would  it  be  fair  to  paraphrase  that  and  say  that  marihuana  makes 
both  dropouts  and  copouts  ? 

Dr.  Kolanskt.  Mr.  Counsel,  I  think  that  would  be  correct  in  many, 
not  all. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  I  have  just  one  more  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  think  by  implication  of  the  previous  answer  it  has  been  answered 
but  I  would  like  to  ask  it  for  the  record.  Earlier  in  your  statement 
you  told  us  of  the  combination  effects  of  marihuana — that  there  was 
an  early  impairment  of  judgment,  a  diminished. attention  in  concen- 
tration span  and  a  slowing  of  the  time-sense,  difficulty  with  verbaliza- 
tion and  a  loss  of  thought  continuity  characterized  by  a  flow  of  speech 
punctuated  by  non  sequiturs  which,  if  I  understand  correctly,  means 
punctuated  by  statements  that  did  not  flow  one  from  the  other.  The 
man,  in  other  words,  was  speaking  disconnectedly.  He  was  speaking 
nonsense  or  perhaps  as  we  say  in  Washington,  "gobbledygook." 

Would  that  be  correct  ? 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  But  he  did  not,  if  I  understand  the  implications  of 
your  testimony  correctly,  he  did  not  himself  realize  that  he  was 
speaking  "gobbledygook,"  that  he  was  failing  to  communicate.  He 
thought  in  his  own  mind  that  he  was  being  very  fluent  and  very  wise 
and  perhaps  even  philosophical  in  his  expressions. 

Would  this  be  correct  ? 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes,  sir. 

Dr.  Kolansky.  Mr.  Counsel,  to  add  a  point  to  that,  one  of  the 
common  things  that  we  hear  from  patients  who  have  engaged  fre- 
quently in  marihuana  parties  or  in  social  marihuana  smoking  is  the 
impression  that  communication  is  vastly  increased  between  the  group 
who  are  smoking.  Only  after  the  individuals  have  been  some  distance 
removed  from  the  smoking  of  marihuana,  when  they  have  ceased 
smoking,  do  they  later  report  that  they  feel  that  their  thinking  was 
absolutely  incorrect,  that,  in  fact,  those  parties  were  many  times  vac- 
uous and  self-centered  exercises  in  speech  at  times,  but  not  com- 
munication. 


165 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Would  this  be  like  a  man  who  has  a  dream  in  which 
he  invents  something  miraculous  or  makes  a  world-shaking  speech 
and  may  actually  rise  in  his  slumber  half  asleep,  make  notes  on  it, 
and  in  the  morning  the  notes  are  completely  unintelligible? 

Dr.  Kolansky.  That  is  a  reasonable  analogy. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  These  are  people  who  think  they  are  communicat- 
ing and  think  they  are  achieving  a  rapport,  and  the  only  rapport  they 
actually  achieve  is  the  rapport  of  common  confusion. 

Dr.  Kolansky.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Sottrwine.  I  have  no  more  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurney.  Just  a  few  general  questions,  Dr.  Kolansky  and 
Dr.  Moore. 

It  is  my  understanding  from  your  studies  and  your  testimony  that 
it  is  your  opinion  that  marihuana  is  indeed  a  dangerous  drug.  Is 
that  correct? 

Dr.  Moore.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurney.  And  that  the  use  of  it — or  the  prolonged  use  of 
it,  certainly — can  have  dramatic,  harmful  effects  upon  an  individual, 
and  there  certainly  is  evidence  that  much  of  that  effect  may  be  per- 
manent damage — is  that  correct? 

Dr.  Moore.  That  is  our  opinion. 

Senator  Gurney.  Another  question:  in  your  studies  and  observa- 
tions of  the  use  of  marihuana,  is  it  your  feeling  that  it  is  becoming 
more  widespread  in  its  use  in  our  population  ? 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  have  been  recent  com- 
ments and  reports  that  are  really  repeats  of  things  that  I  heard  3  or 
4  years  ago  and  that  is  that  the  marihuana  epidemic  has  crested  and 
that  now  it  is  beginning  to  decline.  I  have  not  found  that  to  be  so  in 
my  clinical  observations.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  what  has  been  happen- 
ing in  the  past  year  is  that  there  may  be,  and  I  say  may  be,  and  this 
with  a  large  question  mark,  a  decline  on  the  college  campus,  but  I 
have  a  hunch  it  is  not  so  much  a  decline  as  it  is  an  apathy  about  re- 
porting as  to  whether  it  (marihuana)  is  in  use  as  much.  There  cer- 
tainly is  no  decline  in  the  large  suburban  high  schools  and  what  has 
happened  most  recently  or  over  the  past  year  or  18  months,  is  that  it 
is  beginning  to  appear  in  the  6th  and  7th  grades ;  in  other  words,  the 
junior  high  schools. 

Senator  Gurney.  And  that  certainly  is  a  new  and  recent  event  as 
far  as  you  believe  ? 

Dr.  Moore.  Well,  the  last  18  months. 
Senator  Gurney.  Yes. 

Dr.  Moore.  That  period. 

Senator  Gurney.  I  suppose  that  is  even  more  dangerous  because 
among  that  age  group  I  do  not  suppose  they  are  able  to  exercise 
the  mature  judgment  perhaps  that  a  college  student  can  exercise. 

Dr.  Moore.  Not  only  that,  but  it  will  take  away  the  very  tools  they 
will  need  for  adolescent  development.  It  diminishes  their  perceptions 
and  the  ability  to  utilize  those  perceptions  and  to  synthesize  them 
into  a  whole ;  the  ability  to  develop  a  character,  to  make  new  identifi- 
cations, is  all  taken  away  by  the  use  of  marihuana. 

In  addition  to  that,  he  is  not  getting  an  education.  If  he  smokes 
marihuana  in  the  morning  at  9  o'clock  in  the  restroom,  he  is  not  likely 


166 

to  be  able  to  absorb  very  much  education  the  rest  of  the  day,  and 
that  is  more  common  than  is  generally  realized  in  public  and  by 
parents  and  teachers  as  well.  A  youngster  who  smokes  in  the  morn-  ji 
ing  can  get  through  all  day  at  school  without  ever  being  detected. 

Dr.  Kolansky.  Senator  Gurney,  on  the  same  point,  I  would  like  to  \ 
add  for  the  record  it  is  our  view  that  marihuana  use  has  really,  as  I 
Dr.  Moore  said,  not  at  all  disappeared  but  it  has  become  more  a  part  | 
of  the  fabric  of  the  school  and  of  society,  so  that  it  really  is  not 
talked  about  very  much.  I  don't  think  marihuana  is  being  used  so  j 
much  in  rebellion  against  society  today  as  it  was  6  or  7  years  ago,  but  | 
it  is  simply  being  used,  and  I  think  one  of  the  problems  in  this  use  is  \ 
the  fact  that  there  has  been  thoroughly  inadequate  education  on  a  i 
mass  public  basis.  The  efforts  are  really  not  being  made.  There  are 
occasional  reports  here  and  there,  but  now  there  is  another  phenom- 
enon that  should  be  noted. 

There  is  an  increasing  mention  of  alcoholism  among  our  young 
people,  which  indeed  is  there,  and  we  would  take  the  view,  a  plague 
on  both  their  houses,  both  alcohol  and  marihuana:  but  the  current 
situation  seems  to  be  a  pitch  toward  the  drug  epidemic  is  over,  mari- 
huana is  no  longer  a  problem,  we  only  have  the  problem  of  alcoholism. 
I  think  this  is  a  tragic  error  in  thinking,  and  I  think  the  public  must 
be  informed  that  the  epidemic  has  not  crested  and  that  it  is  an  epi- 
demic and  that  here  is  a  vast  toxic  effect  from  marihuana  in  the  self. 

Senator  Gurnet.  That  really  is  why  I  laid  the  basic  premise  with 
these  questions  because  you  touched  upon  the  next  point  I  wanted  to 
make,  and  that  is :  is  it  not  your  opinion  that  the  widespread  impres- 
sion about  marihuana,  among  lay,  not  medical  people  or  scientists, 
is  indeed  that  it  is  not  a  dangerous  drug?  Isn't  this  the  widely  ac- 
cepted opinion  ? 

Dr.  Kolanskt.  That  is  correct. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Now  then  going  on  from  there,  I  wanted  to  ask 
a  couple  of  other  questions  on  that,  too,  which  puzzled  me  in  your 
paper  here.  Taking  them  in  chronological  order,  you  mentioned  that 
one  of  your  papers  was  printed  in  the  American  Medical  Association 
Journal  and,  as  I  understood  it  in  the  very  same  journal  there  was 
an  editorial  that,  if  it  did  not  discount  your  paper  entirely,  at  least 
refused  to  mention  any  of  the  serious  points  you  made.  Isn't  that 
true? 

Dr.  Moore.  No. 

Dr.  Kolanskt.  No. 

Dr.  Moore.  That  probably — there  were  two  papers  that  were  pub- 
lished in  JAMA,  that  is  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Asso- 
ciation. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Yes. 

Dr.  Moore.  I  read  part  of  the  editorial  that  accompanied  the  second 
paper. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  see. 

Dr.  Moore.  Which  laid  stress  on  the  organic  effects.  In  the  first 
paper  we  geared  our  attention  toward  the  effects  on  the  developing 
adolescent  and  we  were  trying  to  show  at  that  time  how  it  affects 
adolescent  development  adversely. 


167 

Also,  coincident  all  v,  or  accidentally — of  course,  we  as  psychoana- 
lysts do  not  believe  in  accidents — in  the  same  journal  there  was  an 
article,  not  by  the  editors  but  it  was  an  additional  article  published 
by  two,  I  think  they  were  psychologists  or  Ph.  D.'s  in  New  York,  on 
the  whole  matter  of  scientific  investigation  in  medicine,  in  which  they 
stated  that  you  must  have  in  every  medical  scientific  investigation  or 
any  scientific  investigation  a  cover  group  or  a  double  blind  study  and 
so  forth. 

We  answered  that  in  our  second  paper  under  the  title  of  "Meth- 
odology", and  we  pointed  out  that  in  medical  clinical  investigation, 
whenever  you  have  a  new  set  of  symptoms  appearing  on  the  scene 
that  are  unlike  any  other  symptoms,  and  when  you  have  in  those  in- 
dividuals who  have  this  new  set  of  symptoms  some  common  factor, 
element  or  toxic  drug,  you  then  can  begin  to  suspect  that  perhaps  that 
drug  has  some  cause  on  the  effect.  After  a  period  of  time,  if  you  re- 
move what  you  suspect  to  be  the  causative  factor  and  the  symptoma- 
tology disappears  and  then  later  on,  giving  the  drug  again,  the  symp- 
tomatology reappears,  then  you  can  pretty  safely  assume — and  this 
is  common  clinical  medical  practice  that  has  gone  on  for  centuries — 
you  can  assume  that  you  have  a  new  clinical  entity.  It  remains  after 
that  to  be  proven  in  the  laboratory  and  in  other  specialties  of 
medicine. 

We  pointed  out  at  that  time  that  this  method  did  not  mean  that 
our  results  were  any  less  scientific  nor  were  they  any  less  valid  than 
the  so-called  double  blind  study.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  if  we  were  to 
write  a  paper  attacking  double  blind  studies,  we  could  tear  them  apart 
and  show  them  how  they  can  make  plenty  of  mistakes  with  such  a 
scientific  method.  That  is  probably  where  the  misunderstanding  came 
from.  It  was  not  an  editorial,  it  was  a  coincidental  article  and,  inci- 
dentally, it  was  the  news  media  that  picked  it  up  and  made  the 
connection. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  see. 

Dr.  Moore.  As  though  they  were  refuting  what  we  had  done,  which 
was  not  true. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  see. 

Dr.  Kolanskt.  If  I  may  add,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  may  also  be 
referring  to  our  quotation  from  the  editorial  itself  in  the  second  ar- 
ticle in  the  Journal  of  the  American  Medical  Association  which  was 
entitled  "Buyer  Beware." 

If  the  wording  sounded  ambivalent  in  the  editorial  to  begin  with, 
it  was  anything  but  ambivalent  towards  the  end  of  it  because  the 
editor  said,  and  I  quote  once  more,  "If  marihuana  ever  were  given 
the  same  legal  status  as  alcoholic  beverages  nothing  could  be  said 
except  'Buyer  Beware'." 

Senator  Gurnet.  Another  question  on  this  business  of  the  country 
not  taking  marihuana  seriously  was  the  report  of  the  National  Com- 
mission that  you  referred  to  here  on  page  4  and  page  5.  The  National 
Commission— I  forget  what  the  title  of  it  was— on  Marihuana,  wasn't 
it,  Marihuana  and  Drug  Abuse?  Why  do  you  think  that  they  took  so 
lightly  this  problem  of  smoking  of  marihuana  as  they  did — and  we 
all  know  they  did — do  you  have  any  idea  why  ? 

Dr.  Moore.  We  are  just  as  puzzled  today  about  it  as  you  are,  sir. 


168 

We  do  not  know  why  they  did  it.  We  were  shocked  when  we  saw  the 
first  reports  that  came  out  through  the  news  media.  Governor  Shafer, 
before  the  television  audience,  and  the  repeated  front  page  kind  of 
item  that  practically  gave  marihuana  sanction — and,  of  course,  on 
reading  the  Marihuana  Commission  report  it  does  no  such  thing.  It 
actually  states  in  the  Marihuana  Commission  report  that  they  dis- 
courage its  use,  and  they  certainly  did  not  approve  of  legalization, 
and  there  are  parts  in  the  Commission's  report  that  very  clearly  state 
that  it  affects  adolescent  development,  that  it  should  not  be  used  by 
adolescents,  and  particularly  discouraged  use  by  them.  But  these  parts 
were  hidden.  And  we  felt  that  where  the  Commission  perhaps  lost 
the  day  was  that  they  did  not,  at  least,  give  enough  emphasis  to  the 
warnings,  with  the  result  that  the  report  was  highly  ambivalent  and, 
in  our  terms,  it  means  you  say  one  thing  out  of  this  side  and  the  op- 
posite out  of  that  side. 

You  should  say  them  both  the  same  way. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Was  there  ample  scientific  and  medical  evidence 
presented  to  the  Commission,  or  available  at  that  time,  which  showed 
that  the  drug  was  a  dangerous  drug? 

Dr.  Moore.  I  would  hope  so. 

They  had  access  not  only  to  what  we  said,  but  they  had  access  to 
a  number  of  other  individuals  in  this  country  who  have  done  work  on 
it.  They  had  access  to  Campbell's  report.  They  even  ignored  that  re- 
port, practically,  and  that  was  a  very  important  report. 

Campbell  even  raised  the  question  at  that  time  as  to  whether  the 
chronic  use  of  hashish  might  in  fact  cause  an  epidemic  of  Parkin- 
sonism, which  Dr.  Hall  referred  to  in  his  study  this  morning,  and 
Dr.  Campbell  felt  that  the  effect  of  cannabis  on  that  area  of  the 
brain  was.  that,  if  destroyed,  it  will  in  later  life  develop  into  Parkin- 
sonism. He  felt  there  was  a  certain  correlation  between  the  epidemic 
proportions  of  Parkinsonism  in  Nepal  and  the  chronic  use  of  hashish. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Is  it  fair  to  say — and  here  I  must  rely  upon  you 
because  I  am  not  familiar  with  the  media  treatment  of  the  Commis- 
sion's report,  I  just  recall  very  little  about  it,  but  I  suspect  you  prob- 
ably paid  attention  to  media  reports — but  how  did  they  present  the 
report,  generally  speaking,  to  the  public? 

Dr.  Kolanskt.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may  take  that,  and  maybe  Dr. 
Moore  will  comment  further,  I  feel  it  would  be  difficult  for  the  media 
to  select  out  the  comments  that  Dr.  Moore  just  summarized.  I  noted 
that  last  week  in  the  prepared  statement  by  Dr.  Brill — who  was  a 
member  of  the  Commission — in  his  statement  here,  that  he  indicated 
that  the  Commission  strongly  worded  their  feeling  about  the  danger 
of  marihuana.  But  I  must  submit  that  I  think  it  would  have  been 
very  difficult  for  the  media  to  weed  those  aspects  out. 

Moreover,  we  wrote  to  the  Commission  after  we  had  testified,  in- 
dicating that  Campbell's  report  was  now  available.  We  sent  a  copy  of 
the  report  to  the  Commission.  We  got  a  rather  terse  letter  back  in- 
dicating that  they  were  aware  of  the  Campbell  work.  To  our  knowl- 
edge it  was  not  mentioned.  On  a  Sunday  morning 

Mr.  Martin.  May  I  ask  you  who  sent  this  report  to  you,  who  sent 
this  letter  to  you,  for  the  Commission  ? 

Dr.  Kolanskt.  I  don't  recall  who  it  was,  but  it  was  sent  from  the 
Commission. 


169 

I  might  also  add  that  the  news  media  were  aware  of  Campbell's 
report  and  reported  on  it,  and,  in  fact,  on  a — I  think  it  was  a  Sunday 
morning,  "Meet  the  Press'  or  one  of  the  other  major  network  pro- 
grams, in  which  they  had  a  discussion  with  a  member  or  members  of 
the  Commission.  The  reporters  there  present  themselves  brought  up 
the  Campbell  work,  and  this  was  virtually  promptly  dismissed  with 
the  statement,  "These  people  were  all  on  other  drugs  and,  therefore, 
the  meaning  of  the  toxicity  of  marihuana  in  the  Campbell  work  is  not 
of  significance" — and  I  am  paraphrasing  here.  But  the  people  in  the 
Campbell  work  were  not  all  on  other  drugs.  Some  were.  The  one  single 
uniform  feature  in  those  young  patients  who  had  cerebral  atrophy 
was  their  smoking  of  marihuana  from  3  to  11  years.  So  the  Commis- 
sion, in  our  opinion,  did  ignore  or  play  down  certain  findings,  to  our 
distress. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  Is  it  fair  to  say,  then,  generalizing,  of  course,  that 
the  Marihuana  Commission  really  misled  the  media  in  their  presenta- 
tion of  the  dangerous  aspects  of  the  use  of  marihuana  ?  Is  that  a  fair 
statement  ? 

Dr.  Kolansky.  More  charitably,  I  would  simply  indicate  that,  in 
the  form  in  which  it  was  written,  it  was  difficult  for  the  media  to 
weed  out  what  was  significant. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  And  as  a  result  of  that  is  it  fair  to  say  that  the 
public — or  there  was  an  opportunity  missed  to  inform  the  public  of 
the  dangerous  aspects  of  the  use  of  marihuana? 

Dr.  Kolansky.  We  feel  that  way. 

Dr.  Moore.  To  at  least  sound  the  early  warning  signal. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  And  what  our  problem  really  is  now  and,  of 
course,  that  is  why  this  subcommittee  is  intensely  interested  in  this, 
in  bringing  before  it  just  about  every  eminent  authority  it  can  to 
present  the  results  of  their  findings,  is  because  we  think  the  para- 
mount issue  now  is  to  present  to  the  public  the  dangers  of  the  use  of 
marihuana  so  that  they  will  understand.  Perhaps  parents  and  teach- 
ers or  whoever  has  charge  of  influencing  and  guiding  younger  people 
can  bring  this  to  their  attention. 

Don't  you  think  this  is  something  that  we  all  need  to  do? 

Dr.  Moore.  Yes,  sir,  we  do. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  May  I  ask  one  question  following  out  the  Chair- 
man's thought? 

Senator  Gtjrney.  Yes. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  Would  you  say  it  is  fair  to  describe  what  the  Com- 
mission did  as  a  Solomon-like  decision  ?  They  had  a  certain  dichotomy 
among  their  membership,  they  wanted  to  go  two  ways,  so  they  cut 
the  baby  down  the  middle  and  gave  half  to  each  side. 

Dr.  Moore.  I  would  say  that  is  a  fair  statement. 

Mr.  Sotjrwine.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Gtjrney.  Well,  thank  you,  Doctors,  for  your  testimony.  It 
certainly  has  been  helpful. 

Our  next  witness  is  Dr.  Bejerot.  Dr.  Bejerot,  would  you  identify 
yourself  for  the  record? 


170 

TESTIMONY  OF  PROF.  NILS  BEJEROT,  STOCKHOLM,  SWEDEN 

Dr.  Bejerot.  I  am  Dr.  Nils  Bejerot  from  Karolinska  Institute, 
Stockholm. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Let  me  ask,  there  was  one  missing  when  we  be- 
gan— I  believe  you  were  sworn  in,  Dr.  Bejerot. 

Let  me  ask  you  a  few  questions,  Doctor,  about  your  qualifications. 

You  took  your  medical  degree  from  the  Karolinska  Institute  in 
Stockholm?  ' 

Dr.  Bejerot.  Yes,  in  1957. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  subsequently  you  trained  as  a  psychiatrist 
at  the  Southern  Hospital,  the  St.  Goran  Hospital  in  Stockholm  from 
1957  to  1962? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  from  1958  up  to  the  present  you  have  served 
as  a  consultant  psychiatrist  to  the  Stockholm  Police? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  in  1963  you  studied  epidemiology  and  medi- 
cal statistics  at  the  London  School  of  Hygiene,  on  a  grant  from  the 
World  Health  Organization? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  That  is  right. 

Senator  Gurnet.  You  have  been  involved  in  an  intensive  study  of 
drug  dependence  for  some  8  or  10  years  now  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  Something  like  that. 

Senator  Gurnet.  You  are  the  author  or  coauthor  of  more  than  130 
scientific  papers  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  And  you  are  also  the  author  of  several  books  on 
drug  addiction  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  Yes. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Is  it  correct  that  your  best  known  is  "Addiction — 
An  Artificially  Induced  Drive"  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  I  think  that  book  is  the  most  well  known. 

Senator  Gurnet.  How  many  languages  has  this  been  translated 
into? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  I  think  four  languages — five. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Is  it  fair  to  say  that  another  work  of  yours,  "Ad- 
diction and  Society,"  is  widely  regarded  as  a  standard  text,  or  as  the 
standard  text,  on  the  epidemiology  of  drug  abuse  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  I  have  been  told  so. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Well,  you  are  very  modest. 

Proceed  with  your  statement,  Doctor,  and  if  you  could  make  sure 
you  get  that  microphone  so  you  are  talking  directly  into  it. 

Dr.  Bejerot.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

On  the  request  of  the  Senate  Subcommittee  on  Internal  Security, 
I  am  presenting  here  a  summary  statement  of  my  views  on  the  social 
and  psychological  effects  of  cannabis,  and  on  the  specific  question  of 
legalizing  the  sale  and  use  of  marihuana. 

The  most  important  psychological  complication  of  cannabis  abuse- 
is  addiction.  An  excellent  illustration  of  this  phenomenon  was  given 
by  the  Egyptian  delegate  at  the  Second  International  Opium  Con- 
ference (1924),  and  is  reprinted  in  the  committee  hearings  of  Sep- 


171 

tember  18,  1972:  "Notwithstanding  the  humiliations  and  penalties 
inflicted  on  addicts  in  Egypt,  they  always  return  to  their  vice." 

It  is  often  declared  that  cannabis  does  not  give  rise  to  addiction. 
This  is  a  misunderstanding  which  has  arisen  concerning  the  nature  of 
addiction,  and  here  I  refer  to  my  first  appendix,  "A  Theory  of  Ad- 
diction as  an  Artificially  Induced  Drive,"  published  in  the  American 
Journal  of  Psychiatry. 

The  pharmacological  and  physiological  phenomenon  of  tolerance, 
that  is,  the  situation  where  an  individual  needs  to  increase  his  doses 
in  order  to  obtain  the  same  effects  of  the  drug,  and  the  so-called 
physical  dependence  connected  with  this,  has  been  confused  with  ad- 
diction, which  is  synonymous  with  drug  dependence  or  psychological 
dependence.  Tolerance  development  only  represents  a  temporary  adap- 
tation of  the  body  tissues  to  the  drug  taken.  The  distressing  vegeta- 
tive or  "physical"  abstinence  phenomena  are  experienced  only  in  con- 
nection with  drugs  with  a  depressant  effect  on  the  central  nervous 
system :  Opiates,  barbiturates,  other  sedatives  and  hypnotics,  alcohol, 
solvents,  et  cetera,  but  are  almost  completely  absent  even  in  advanced 
abuse  of  drugs  with  a  central  stimulant  effect — cocaine,  ampheta- 
mines, phenmetraline,  methylphenidate  and  hallucinogens  such  as 
mescaline,  psilocybin,  cannabis,  LSD,  et  cetera. 

The  physiological  or  "physical"  abstinence  reactions  are  easily 
handled  and  cured  in  a  few  days  or  weeks  of  adequate  treatment,  and 
do  not  give  rise  to  problems  of  any  medical  significance.  The  main 
effect  of  the  tolerance  phenomenon  is  that  it  makes  it  extremely  dif- 
ficult for  an  addict  to  break  a  period  of  drug  taking.  To  cure  drug 
tolerance  or  vegetative  abstinence  reactions  is  simple,  to  cure  or  even 
handle  the  addiction  is  extremely  difficult. 

Thus,  physical  dependence  is  only  an  incidental  metabolic  compli- 
cation of  certain  kinds  of  drug  taking,  and  is  not  included  in  a  strict 
concept  of  addiction.  All  euphorising  drugs,  however,  may  give  rise 
to  psychological  dependence  or  addiction,  and  this  has,  as  already 
mentioned,  the  character  of  an  artificially  induced  drive,  in  many 
cases  far  stronger  than  sexual  drives.  This  theory  has  recently  been 
supported  by  the  experiments  of  a  German  team  under  Professor 
Roeder  in  1974.  They  considered  that  if  addiction  had  the  character 
of  an  artificially  induced  drive,  this  drive  or  craving  must  have  a 
special  center  in  the  brain.  They  found  this  center  in  the  hypothala- 
mus region,  and  were  able  to  put  it  out  of  action  by  the  destruction 
of  about  1  cubic  millimeter  of  the  tissue  by  the  stereotactic  method, 
and  thereby  put  an  end  to  the  craving  for  the  drug.  In  human  ex- 
periments, largely  carried  out  on  addicted  physician  volunteers,  sex- 
ual potency  was  affected,  and  this  indirectly  also  supports  the  theory 
of  the  drive  character  of  drug  addiction. 

A  serious  complication  of  cannabis  abuse  seems  to  be  chronic 
psychosis,  that  is,  insanity,  a  condition  which  has  long  been  recog- 
nized in  areas  where  cannabis  abuse  is  endemic.  In  the  West  it  is 
often  said  that  these  cases  reported  as  cannabis  psychoses  are  actually 
schizophrenias.  If  the  Committee  has  any  doubts  about  the  existence 
of  chronic  cannabis  psychoses,  it  can  initiate  a  simple  investigation 
to  illuminate  the  question.  If  the  rates  of  schizophrenia  among  rela- 
tives of  verified  cases  of  schizophrenia   are  compared  with  those 


172 

among  relatives  of  persons  with  chronic  cannabis  psychoses,  there 
will  be  a  difference  in  these  two  rates  if  we  are  dealing  with  two  dif- 
ferent conditions.  This  technique  was  used  by  Tatetsu,  1963,  in  Japan 
to  prove  that  chronic  amphetamine  psychoses  are  of  a  different  nature 
from  schizophrenia. 

I  will  not  go  into  details  about  acute  cannabis  intoxication,  which 
is  a  well-known  phenomenon,  but  a  few  words  should  be  said  on  the 
amotivational  syndrome.  This  is  a  massive  and  chronic  passivity 
brought  about  by  prolonged  and  intensive  abuse  of  cannabis.  In 
these  cases  there  is  a  basically  altered  sense  of  reality,  and  a  tendency 
to  magical  thinking.  Intellectual  deterioration,  which  may  be  irre- 
versible, and  vagabondism  commonly  develop. 

The  amotivational  syndrome  has  been  observed  very  late  in  the 
West.  This  phenomenon  in  the  Middle  and  Far  East  was  commonly 
interpreted  as  an  expression  of  general  debility,  so  called  "Eastern" 
personality,  et  cetera.  If  cannabis  effects  are  studied  on  persons  who 
are  already  passive — as  was  the  case  in  the  La  Guardia  report,  where 
persons  under  study  were  prisoners  and  unemployed — passivity  may 
escape  notice. 

In  regard  to  legal  aspects  of  illicit  drugs,  I  would  like  to  make 
some  general  remarks  on  drug  epidemics  before  going  into  the  spe- 
cial question  concerning  cannabis. 

In  Stockholm  at  the  end  of  the  1940's  an  epidemic  of  intravenous 
abuse  of  central  stimulants  arose  in  a  little  group  of  about  a  dozen 
intellectuals  and  bohemians.  The  number  of  abusers  doubled  roughly 
every  30th  month  for  many  years,  and  in  1965  there  were  about  4,000 
cases  in  Sweden,  but  none  in  the  other  Scandinavian  countries. 

At  the  beginning  of  1965  a  campaign  was  waged  in  the  Swedish 
mass  media  in  favor  of  liberalizing  drug  policy  regarding  nonmedical 
use  of  narcotic  and  dangerous  drugs.  The  arguments  were  on  the 
same  lines  as  in  the  present  campaign  for  legalizing  cannabis. 

Under  pressure  from  this  campaign  the  Swedish  Board  of  Health 
permitted  "by  way  of  an  experiment"  the  prescribing  of  dangerous 
drugs,  both  opiates  and  amphetamines,  to  a  limited  number  of  addicts 
for  intravenous  self -administration. 

During  the  2  years  from  spring  1965  to  spring  1967,  when  this 
prescribing  activity  took  place  in  Sweden,  the  so-called  legal  addicts 
there  were  together  about  200  persons,  had  a  higher  crime  rate  than 
they  had  had  during  a  corresponding  period  prior  to  receiving  their 
drugs  legally  [Lindberg  1969]. 

The  records  show  that  they  were  in  receipt  of  health  insurance  and 
social  welfare  allowances  on  a  larger  scale  and  for  longer  periods  than 
before  this  prescribing  began ;  they  were  unemployed  more  than  pre- 
viously, although  the  situation  on  the  labor  market  had  not  deterior- 
ated ;  they  even  had  a  higher  mortality  rate  than  a  comparable  group 
of  addicts  who  were  not  receiving  drugs  legally. 

In  the  summer  1967  every  fourth  intravenous  abuser  arrested  in 
Stockholm  said  he  had  received  drugs  during  this  2-year  period  from 
persons  he  knew  to  be  legal  addicts.  Six  months  after  the  start  of  the 
experiment  the  addicts  were  receiving  on  an  average  twice  the  quan- 
tities of  drugs  as  at  the  beginning,  and  after  2  years  they  were  re- 
ceiving three  times  the  initial  amounts  as  calculated  from  the  10,000 
prescriptions  we  have  checked  these  on. 


173 

During  the  2  years  the  experiment  continued,  the  rates  of  abuse 
among  arrestees  in  Stockholm  rose  more  rapidly  than  during  any 
other  period,  particularly  among  the  youngest  age  group,  those  of  15 
to  19  years  of  age,  where  the  rates  rose  from  6  percent  injecting  in 
1965  to  28  percent  2  years  later. 

The  rapid  fluctuations  in  Swedish  drug  policy  along  a  permissive- 
restrictive  scale  during  the  second  half  of  the  1960's  provided  some- 
thing that  may  be  justly  described  as  an  experimental  situation.  I 
have  just  completed  a  400-page  report  on  the  covariation  between 
rates  of  drug  abuse  among  arrestees  in  Stockholm  during  the  years 
1965-70  and  drug  policy  during  this  period.  Only  intravenous  drug 
abuse  was  studied,  as  only  this  form  can  be  objectively  and  simply 
observed  through  needle  marks  on  the  arms;  but  there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  other  forms  of  illicit  drug  abuse  would  vary  in  rela- 
tion to  drug  policy  in  another  way  than  the  intravenous  form. 

Several  investigations,  for  instance  a  comparison  with  a  casefinding 
study  which  was  one  of  the  most  extensive  ever  carried  out  anywhere, 
showed  that  the  arrestees  to  a  large  extent  were  representative  for  the 
population  of  intravenous  abusers  known  to  the  various  authorities 
in  Stockholm. 

The  study  comparing  drug  abuse  and  drug  policy  showed,  that 
during  a  liberal  and  permissive  period  of  drug  policy,  intravenous 
abuse  accelerated.  On  a  return  to  a  traditional  restrictive  policy  in 
1967  the  acceleration  was  checked,  and  when  an  extrarestrictive  pol- 
icy was  introduced  with  a  police  offensive  on  the  drug  trade  in  1969, 
the  rates  of  abuse  fell  in  this  study. 

Even  though  the  Swedish  mass  media  have  never  admitted  their 
responsibility  for  the  permissive  drug  policy  they  launched  and  drove 
into  effect,  they  have  become  very  cautious  on  the  drug  question. 
There  is  no  longer  any  articulate  demand  for  a  liberal  cannabis 
policy  in  the  Swedish  mass  media,  although  there  is  a  large  number 
of  cannabis  smokers  in  the  country.  The  Swedish  authorities  are  now 
unanimously  against  any  further  experiments  with  legal  supplies  of 
dangerous  drugs. 

The  illicit  drug  problem  should  be  seen  in  the  perspective  of  the 
dynamics  of  the  spread  of  the  drugtaking  behavior.  It  is  generally 
agreed  nowadays  that  abuse  of  the  type  we  are  discussing  here  is  a 
contagious  condition  spread  from  an  abuser  to  a  novice  by  direct 
personal  contact.  This  process  is  called  contagion  in  medicine,  and 
peer  pressure  in  sociology. 

In  1965  I  introduced  a  sociomedical  classification  of  addictions 
according  to  their  mode  of  inception  into  three  main  types — 
appendix  2. 

THERAPEUTIC  ADDICTIONS 

These  are  the  rather  rare  cases  which  have  developed  as  complica- 
tions to  medical  treatment.  These  cases  mainly  affect  middle  aged 
people;  they  occur  in  all  countries  and  at  all  periods;  thus  their  dis- 
tribution is  rather  constant  in  time  and  place. 

EPIDEMIC  ADDICTIONS 

These  are  the  type  we  are  discussing  today.  They  usually  affect 
young  persons,  and  vary  greatly  in  time  and  place.  As  already  men- 


33-371    O  -  74  -  13 


174 

tioned  they  arise  through  case-to-case  spread,  and  for  that  reason 
they  may  increase  almost  exponentially  for  long  periods.  This  has 
been  demonstrated  concerning  injections  of  central  stimulants  in 
Sweden — Bejerot  1970 — heroin  in  Britain,  where  the  rates  doubled 
every  16th  month,  1958-68 — Bewley  et  al.  1968 — and  the  inception  of 
cannabis  smoking  in  five  Danish  towns,  1965-70 — Holstein  1972. 
Later  the  rate  of  increase  falls  and  levels  off,  and  the  curves  are 
mathematically  of  the  so-called  logistic  or  s-formed  type. 

ENDEMIC  ADDICTIONS 

Here  the  drug  has  become  accepted  in  society  for  pleasure  and  re- 
laxation. The  whole  population  is  then  exposed  to  risk,  and  large 
groups  of  ordinary  people  become  addicted  to  the  drug. 

Examples  of  endemic  addictions  are  cocainism  among  South  Amer- 
ican Indians,  opium  smoking  in  Old  China,  cannabis  smoking  in  the 
Middle  East  and  alcoholism  in  the  Christian  part  of  the  world. 

In  the  early  stages  of  a  drug  epidemic  only  very  deviant  persons 
use  the  drugs,  particularly  if  they  must  be  obtained  illicitly.  As  the 
epidemic  spreads,  more  and  more  normal  persons  are  drawn  in,  until, 
eventually,  the  drugs  become  socially  accepted,  and  then  perfectly 
average  people  use  them :  In  fact  it  may  then  be  deviant  to  refuse  to 
use  them.  An  endemic  drug  culture  is  extremely  difficult  to  eradicate. 
The  cannabis  epidemic  in  America  today  seems  to  be  perilously  near 
to  becoming  endemic.  Large  sections  of  the  mass  media,  on  the  basis 
of  pharmacological  data  they  were  not  in  a  position  to  judge,  have 
declared  that  cannabis  is  harmless,  and  a  suitable  drug  for  young 
people.  It  requires  no  more  than  this  to  explain  the  explosive  increase 
in  cannabis  abuse  in  the  Western  World  today. 

The  demand  for  legalizing  cannabis  has  been  strongest  in  those 
countries  which  have  had  the  shortest  experience  and  the  weakest 
forms  of  the  drug.  Correspondingly,  I  consider  that  as  a  psychia- 
trist, one's  attitude  to  cannabis  becomes  more  negative  the  more  one 
sees  of  its  effects. 

Those  who  argue  in  favor  of  legalizing  cannabis  are  also  bound 
to  consider  whether  legalization  is  also  to  include  hashish  and  the  far 
stronger,  concentrated  product,  cannabis  oil.  Since  tetrahydrocan- 
nabinol can  now  be  synthesized,  the  supporters  of  legislation  should 
also  decide  if  the  synthetic  products  are  to  be  accepted,  or  only  THC 
extracted  from  natural  products.  Since  the  potency  of  THC  is  com- 
parable to  that  of  LSD,  it  would  be  logical  to  make  a  decision  at  the 
same  time  as  to  whether  LSD,  psilocybin,  mescaline,  et  cetera,  should 
be  legalized. 

Intensive  and  frequent  abuse  of  hallucinogenic  drugs— mescaline, 
psilocybin,  LSD  and  cannabis — seems  to  give  rise  to  profound 
changes  in  the  sense  of  reality,  and  this  phenomenon  does  not  appear 
to  pass  over  when  the  individual  is  sober  or  when  he  stops  taking  the 
drugs.  In  this  way  the  hallucinogens  seem  to  be  more  dangerous  to 
the  mental  functions  than  other  groups  of  euphorizing  drugs. 

If  cannabis  were  legalized  in  the  United  States,  this  would  prob- 
ably be  an  irreversible  process  not  only  for  this  country  and  this 
generation,  but  perhaps  for  the  whole  of  Western  civilization.  As  far 


175 

as  I  can  see  another  result  would  be  a  breakdown  of  the  international 
control  system  regarding  narcotics  and  dangerous  drugs. 

TO  SUMMARIZE 

There  is  no  doubt  that  cannabis  is  an  addicting  drug,  and  that 
persistent  and  intensive  cannabis  smoking  frequently  gives  rise  to 
profound  phenomena  with  passivity  and  change  in  the  sense  of  reality 
as  the  most  apparent  signs. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  a  few  questions  I  would  like  to  ask  Professor 
Bejerot — and,  also,  I  would  want  to  suggest  that  you  answer  the 
questions  as  briefly  as  possible.  We  are  very  pressed  for  time ;  we  are 
going  to  have  to  get  through  with  our  next  three  witnesses  in  roughly 
an  hour.  So  to  our  upcoming  witnesses  I  would  like  to  suggest  that 
you  cut  your  reading  version  roughly  in  half.  The  entire  text  will  be 
inserted  in  the  record  as  though  you  read  it,  in  accordance  with  the 
chairman's  opening  ruling,  and  that  will  leave  some  time  for  ques- 
tions and  we  will  be  able  to  wind  up  by  1  o'clock  approximately. 

Professor  Bejerot,  if  I  understood  your  statement,  you  differ  with 
the  concept  that  there  is  an  important  difference  between  "addiction" 
and  what  we  call  "drug  dependence"  in  this  country.  Do  you  think 
this  is  a  false  distinction  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  You  see,  at  first  I  differentiate  very  sharply  between 
drug  abuse  and  drug  dependence,  but  drug  dependence  according  to 
my  terminology  is  synonymous  to  drug  addiction. 

I  define  addiction  as  an  acquired,  profound,  and  persistent  fixation 
to  certain  strong  and  pleasurable  sensations  commonly  produced  by 
intake  of  euphorizing  drugs.  This  fixation  leads  to  a  behavior  of  a 
compulsive  character  and  much  resembling  natural  drives  as  sexual- 
ity and  sometimes  replacing  them,  and  I  consider  also  such  phenom- 
ena as,  for  instance,  gambling  and  kleptomania  are  kinds  of  addic- 
tion, so  you  do  not  need  drugs  to  produce  addiction.  And  I  also  mean 
that  sexual  perversions,  such  as  for  instance,  fetishism,  seem  to  be 
more  or  less  conditions  of  the  same  nature. 

And  I  would  take  the  opportunity  to  add  here,  that  drug  addictions 
occur  spontaneously  in  the  animal  world  under  natural  conditions. 

Mr.  Martin.  Using  your  definition,  Professor,  there  is  no  doubt  in 
your  mind  that  cannabis  use  can,  and  frequently  does  lead  to 
addiction  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

Mr.  Martin.  It  is  widely  argued,  at  least,  it  has  been  argued  by 
some  people,  that  cannabis  does  not  result  in  psychotic  conditions. 
But  I  think  it  is  conceded  even  by  people  who  have  made  this  state- 
ment that  where  you  have  borderline  cases — people  who  are  weak 
psychologically — the  use  of  cannabis  can  push  them  over  the  border, 
over  the  brink? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  I  think  that  just  the  borderline  cases  are  those  in  very 
great  danger.  We  have  an  average  of  1.5  percent  schizophrenics  in 
every  society,  and  we  have  a  few  percent  of  borderline  cases,  so  in  a 
country  of  this  size  there  are  some  millions  of  people  who  are  in  a 
very  high  risk  for  psychosis  from  marihuana  or  cannabis. 


176 

Mr.  Martin.  So  you  have  some  millions  of  people  in  this  country   ; 
who,  in  your  opinion,  might  become  completely  psychotic  personal- 
ities? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  Yes,  who  would  be  very  susceptible. 

Mr.  Martin.  If  they  were  exposed  to  cannabis  ? 

Mr.  Sourwine.  May  I  ask  one  question  for  clarification?  You  i 
would  not  wish  to  be  quoted,  would  you  Doctor,  to  the  effect  that  an  j 
individual  had  no  serious  danger  from  the  use  of  cannabis  unless  he  j 
was  already  a  borderline  psychotic  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  I  would  not  say  so.  You  see,  it  is  always  a  question  , 
of  dose-response  relations.  But  the  personal  susceptibility  differs  very  j 
much  in  different  individuals  and  for  some  individuals  far  less  doses  : 
are  needed  to  result  in  a  psychotic  break. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  Is  an  ordinary  person  with  no  special  medical  edu- 
cation or  experience  competent  to  decide  whether  he  is  in  danger  from 
cannabis  use  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  No,  the  individual  could  not  do  that  himself. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  No  other  questions. 

Mr.  Martin.  If  cannabis  does  as  much  harm  to  the  individual  as 
your  paper  indicates,  Professor,  if  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands 
or  millions  of  young  people  in  our  country  who  are  using  it  on  a 
continuing  basis,  which  we  know  to  be  a  fact,  wouldn't  this  suggest 
the  possibility  that,  perhaps  a  decade  or  two  from  now,  our  society 
may  find  itself  encumbered  with  a  large  population  of  partial  crip- 
ples— of  workers  who  have  lost  some  of  their  functional  ability,  al- 
though they  are  functional  at  a  lower  level,  and  of  partially  crippled 
minds  that  would  still  operate,  but  again  at  a  substantially  lower 
level  than  they  were  capable  of  performing  at  before  they  were  ex- 
posed to  cannabis  ? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  wouldn't  the  same  thing  also  apply  to  the  physi- 
cal effects  of  cannabis  which  were  described  in  yesterdays  session  by 
the  panel  of  medical  scientists  which  we  brought  together  from  va- 
rious parts  of  the  United  States  and  other  countries? 

Dr.  Bejerot.  I  have  been  mostly  concerned  with  the  psychological 
and  psychiatric  and  social  effects,  and  the  physical  effects  I  haven't 
studied  personally.  But  I  was  impressed  by  the  testimony  given 
yesterday. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

Professor  Soueif,  would  you  stand  up,  please,  and  hold  up  your 
right  hand.  Do  you  swear  the  testimony  you  are  about  to  give  this 
subcommittee  will  be  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the 
truth,  so  help  you  God  ? 
Dr.  Soueif.  I  do. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Yours  is  a  fairly  short  statement,  Professor,  and 
I  think  if  you  omitted  the  things  in  the  parenthesis,  we  could  get 
through  all  of  it  fairly  rapidly. 

Let  me  first  ask  you  some  questions  here  to  establish  your  qualifi- 
cations, and  I  will  do  this  all  in  one  question. 

It  is  my  understanding  you  took  your  doctor  of  philosophy  from 
Cairo  University  in  1954;  you  did  postdoctoral  research  at  the  in- 
stitute of  psychiatry,  London  University,  1955  and  1956;  you  have 


177 

been  on  the  faculty  of  Cairo  University  since  1962,  first  as  an  asso- 
ciate professor  of  psychology,  and,  since  1970,  as  a  full  professor; 
since  October  1973  you  have  been  chairman  of  the  department  of 
psychiatry  and  philosophy  at  Cairo  University;  at  different  times, 
you  have  been  a  guest  researcher  or  guest  professor  at  the  institute 
of  psychiatry,  London  University,  the  Max  Planck  Institute  of  Psy- 
chiatry in  Munich,  and  the  Lund  University  in  Lund,  Sweden ;  from 
May  1968  to  January  1971  you  served  in  your  government  as  Under 
Secretary  of  State  for  Culture;  you  are  currently  a  member  of  the 
World  Health  Organization's  Panel  on  Drug  Dependence,  and  a 
member  of  the  Scientific  and  Professional  Advisory  Board  of  the 
International  Council  on  Alcohol  and  Drug  Addictions? 

During  the  1960's  you  produced  a  major  study  of  the  impact  of 
the  hashish  epidemic  on  Egyptian  society.  This  study,  as  I  am  told, 
is  recognized  as  a  classic  in  this  field.  You  are  also  chairman  of  the 
Committee  for  the  Investigation  of  Cannabis  Consumption  in  Egypt. 

Are  these  statements  I  have  made  accurate  to  describe  your  back- 
ground ? 

TESTIMONY  OF  PROF.  M.  I.  SOUEIF  OF  EGYPT 

Dr.  Soueif.  Correct,  Mr.  Chairman. 

If  you  may  allow  me  for  one  single  remark ;  I  thought  I  heard  you 
saying  that  I  am  now  the  chairman  of  the  department  for  psychiatry 
and  philosophy,  I  think  it  is  psychology  and  philosophy. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Well,  it  was  philosophy  here,  yes.  But  it  is  psy- 
chiatry ? 

Dr.  Soueif.  Psychology  and  philosophy,  not  psychiatry. 

Senator  Gurnet.  We  will  make  that  correction  in  the  record  and 
we  thank  you  for  calling  that  to  my  attention.  Proceed  with  your 
statement. 

Dr.  Soueif.  It  is  an  honor  to  have  been  invited  to  give  my  scientific 
opinion  before  this  highly  esteemed  subcommittee  on  the  subject  of 
cannabis  consumption. 

My  colleagues  and  I  have  been  working  on  the  subject  from  Oc- 
tober 1957.  Starting  from  1967,  I  got  in  touch  with  American  and 
European  scientists  who  became  interested  in  the  field  as  cannabis 
taking  was  reported  to  have  been  gradually  spreading  in  a  number 
of  Western  societies.  I  was  invited  to  participate  in  a  number  of  meet- 
ings which  were  held  at  the  WHO  in  Geneva  and  in  various  other 
places;  for  example,  Rome,  Helsinki,  and  London,  where  I  had  the 
opportunity  to  raise  and  discuss  various  relevant  questions  with  com- 
petent scientists  who  had  done  significant  work  mostly  in  the  area  of 
cannabis  and  drug  research. 

In  my  statement,  I  will  have  to  bank  most  of  the  time  on  the  work 
I  did  with  my  colleagues  in  Egypt.  I  will  refer,  however,  whenever 
possible,  to  other  investigators  whose  work  sheds  light  on  relevant 
issues. 

i 

A  few  points  have  to  be  made  clear : 

a.  I  did  all  my  work  on  regular  long-term  users.  Most  of  the  work 
reported  in  the  literature  has  been  carried  out  on  short-term  takers 


178 

and  the  immediate  effects  of  the  drug.  Some  discrepancies  between 
the  two  sets  of  findings  may,  therefore,  be  expected  and  could  be  in- 
terpreted in  various  ways. 

b.  The  main  part  of  my  work  was  done  on  prison  inmates;  those 
may  differ  in  certain  respects  from  ordinary  citizens.  However,  in  the 
absence  of  data  pointing  otherwise,  the  information  we  obtained 
might  be  given  more  weight  than  mere  hunches  or  impressions,  re- 
garding generalizability. 

c.  Cultural  differences  between  Egyptian  takers  and  their  Western 
counterparts,  for  whatever  this  might  imply,  should  be  taken  into 
account. 

n 

Our  findings  have  been  obtained  by  the  use  of  two  methods — 
Soueif,  1967;  1971: 

a.  We  carefully  interviewed  big  numbers  of  takers  and  comparable 
nontakers  on  a  wide  variety  of  points  relevant  to  cannabis  use. 

b.  We  also  used  objective  psychological  tests  to  measure  a  number 
of  psychological  functions  considered  by  various  authorities  to  be  of 
crucial  importance  for  adequate  functioning  in  work  situations.  Such 
functions  are  also  treated,  in  the  clinical  literature,  as  significant 
indices  of  mental  health— R.  Payne  1973 ;  A.  Yates  1973. 

In  all  cases  of  interviewing  and  testing,  we  based  our  conclusions 
on  the  results  of  comparisons  between  users  and  nonusers. 

ni 

We  found  that  the  majority  of  cannabis  takers — 78.5  percent — 
expressed  a  desire,  but  inability,  to  get  rid  of  the  habit,  and  about 
one-fourth  of  this  discontented  majority  had  made  actual  though 
unsuccessful  attempts  to  stop  the  habit  completely.  According  to  their 
own  reports,  takers,  when  deprived  of  the  drug,  tend  to  become 
quarrelsome,  anxious,  impulsive,  easily  upset,  and  difficult  to  please — 
see  also  Haines  and  Green  1970.  Their  productivity  deteriorates  in 
quantity  and  quality.  Such  changes,  combined  with  what  seems  to  be 
an  overpowering  urge  to  continue  taking  the  drug,  constitutes  some 
aspects  of  what  the  late  Dr.  Eddy  and  others  called  psychic  depend- 
ence— Eddy  and  others  1965. 

We  also  found  that  cannabis  takers  far  exceeded  nontakers  as 
regards  attachment  to  alcohol,  coffee,  tea,  and  tobacco — see  also 
Cohen  1972;  Goode  1971;  Leonard  1969;  McGlothlin  and  others  1970; 
Whitehead  and  others  1972 — and  that  they,  in  fact,  did  so  before 
taking  to  cannabis.  However,  the  longer  they  go  on  taking  the  drug 
and/or  the  heavier  they  become  as  habitues,  the  more  liable  to  adding 
opium  to  their  drug  menue  they  turn — Figure  1 — Soueif  1971 ;  Nahas 
1973.  This  kind  of  data,  in  our  opinion,  suggests  that  cannabis  taking 
may  be  viewed  as  part  of  a  broad  need  or  urge  for  any  chemical  agent 
that  would  affect  the  central  nervous  system,  either  by  arousal  or  by 
inhibition,  and  that  more  familiarity  with  or  attachment  to  cannabis 
facilitates — not  necessarily  on  a  pharmacological  basis  but  could  be 
through  some  psychosocial  mechanisms — proceeding  towards  harder 
drugs. 


179 

However,  cannabis  takers  did  not  seem  to  be  significantly  below 
the  average  for  nontakers  on  certain  aspects  of  moral  behavior.  When 
faced  with  situations  implying  various  kinds  and/or  degrees  of  temp- 
tation, takers  did  not  appear  to  behave  as  more  vulnerable  than  non- 
takers.  They,  also,  did  not  see  any  inherent  relationship  between  their 
drug  habit  and  criminal  tendencies  or  ways  of  behavior. 

We  examined  the  actual  criminal  records  of  a  large  group  of 
convicted  takers  and  of  an  almost  equally  big  group  of  convicted 
nontakers.  Both  groups  were  derived  from  the  same  prisons.  In  com- 
paring the  two  samples,  we  took  into  account  all  criminal  offenses  other 
than  those  having  to  do  with  narcotics.  More  nontakers — 13.5  percent — 
than  takers — 5.7  percent — were  found  to  have  had  criminal  records 
previous  to  their  arrest.  We  also  found  that  nonusers  tended  to  exceed 
users  regarding  the  average  number  of  crimes  committed  by  each  of 
those  having  criminal  records — Soueif  1971.  On  the  basis  of  our  data, 
therefore,  cannabis  taking  is  not  significantly  associated  with  crim- 
inality. This  conclusion  is  in  agreement  with  what  several  other 
investigators  reported — Nahas  1973. 

rv 

On  the  objective  tests,  we  obtained  the  following  results : 

a.  Takers  were  definitely  slow  on  tests  used  for  the  assessment  of 
speed  of  very  simple  motor  tasks.  Those  tests  were  derived  from  the 
world-known  battery  named  USES. 

b.  They  did  also  poorly  on  a  test  measuring  speed  and  accuracy  of 
visual  discrimination.  This  test  requires  a  good  deal  of  concentration 
of  attention. 

c.  Takers  were  definitely  below  the  average  for  their  comparable 
nontakers  on  tests  for  hand-eye  coordination  with  and  without  speed 
being  explicitly  emphasized  in  the  instructions.  "Trail  Making  and 
Bender  Gestalt  Copy"  respectively. 

d.  We  also  found  that  on  some  tests  of  immediate  memory — Bender 
Gestalt  Recall — especially  those  requiring  some  kind  of  mental  reor- 
ganization of  the  test  material — "Wechsler's  Digit  Span  Back- 
ward"— cannabis  takers  were  very  low  performers. 

e.  Cannabis  takers  tended  to  overestimate  distances  of  moderate 
lengths.  However,  nontakers  tended  to  underestimate  such  distances. 

f.  As  to  time  estimation  the  results  are  still  equivocal.  See  also 
Hollister  and  Tinklenberg  1973 ;  Tinklenberg  and  others  1972. 


As  to  the  relative  magnitude  of  intellectual  and  psychomotor  im- 
pairment associated  with  cannabis  taking  we  came  recently  to  the 
conclusion  that  such  impairment  seems  to  vary  in  size  according  to 
the  general  level  of  predrug  proficiency :  The  higher  the  initial  level 
of  proficiency,  the  bigger  the  amount  of  impairment.  We  could,  so 
far,  demonstrate  the  validity  of  this  conclusion  within  two  contexts 
as  follows — Soueif  1974 ;  1971 : 

a.  Those  with  a  higher  level  of  education — and/or  intelligence — 
show  the  largest  amount  of  deterioration,  illiterates  almost  no  dete- 
rioration, and  semiliterates  in  between. 


180 

b.  Urbans — being  presumably  at  a  higher  level  of  arousal  than 
rurals —  show  much  more  impairment  than  rurals,  with  semirurals  in 
between. 

At  present,  we  are  testing  the  theory  along  a  third  dimension, 
namely,  young — minus  25  years — versus  old  age — 40  plus  years.  The 
prediction  is  that  young  takers  would  display  more  impairment  than 
older  users.  We  would,  also,  expect  the  same  pattern  of  findings  to 
emerge  in  the  area  of  creative  thinking  abilities.  But  this  has  to  await 
verification. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

Mr.  Martin. 

Mr.  Martin.  Professor  Soueif,  at  yesterday's  hearings  which  you 
attended,  Professor  Heath  of  Tulane  University  presented  evidence 
of  aberrations  from  the  normal  brain  wave  patterns  in  different  seg- 
ments of  the  brain.  The  subjects  in  most  of  his  experiments  were 
rhesus  monkeys,  but  he  has  also  done  his  experiment  with  humans. 
Among  other  things,  he  stated  that  some  portions  of  the  brain  appear 
to  be  much  more  affected  by  marihuana  smoking  than  other  portions. 
Could  this  tie  in  with  your  finding  that  those  with  the  higher  level 
of  education  show  the  largest  amount  of  deterioration,  illiterates 
almost  no  deterioration,  and  semi-illiterates  in  between? 

Dr.  Sotjeif.  I  think  it  does  show  some  sort  of  agreement  or  con- 
vergence with  my  results  in  the  sense  that  in  the  clinical  literature — 
and  I  am  talking  here  as  a  clinical  psychologist — we  know  that 
patients  with  brain  damage  are  to  be  tested  on  tests  of  speed  of 
psychomotor  performance,  and  the  expectation  is  usually  that  they 
show  abnormal  slowness.  This  has  been  shown  to  be  the  case  during 
the  last  20  years  or  more.  I  can  tell  offhand  some  names  of  the 
researchers. 

Dr.  M.  B.  Shapiro  of  the  Institute  of  Psychiatry  of  London,  has 
reported  on  this  fact. 

Dr.  E.  Paine  from  Canada  and  J.  H.  G.  Hewlett,  who  were  together 
at  the  Institute  of  Psychiatry,  did  quite  a  lot  of  work  in  this  area, 
and  this  has  been  published  and  republished  again  in  1973  and  it 
has  not  been  refuted. 

Therefore  insofar  as  the  slowness  of  performance  goes,  this  ties  up 
with  the  idea  of  brain  damage,  which  has  been  described  yesterday, 
here. 

I  think  one  can  go  on  again  telling  the  same  story  about  something 
like  visual  discrimination  and  that  cannabis  takers  showed  some 
deterioration  or  impairment  of  this  function. 

The  only  thing  to  be  pointed  out  is  that  I  did  not  mention  brain 
damage  because  I  always  prefer  to  stick,  very  much,  to  my  area  of 
specialization,  as  a  man  who  studies  behavior  as  it  can  be  observed 
from  outside,  and  I  leave  the  rest  to  my  other  colleagues  in  the 
scientific  arena. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  believe  you  have  used  the  expression  "dependence" 
or  "drug  dependence"  in  describing  the  attachment  of  the  marihuana 
smoker  to  marihuana.  But  whether  you  call  it  addiction  or  depend- 
ence, what  it  adds  up  to  in  either  case  is  that  the  victim  is  attached 
to  the  drug  which  has  enslaved  him  in  an  obsessional  manner — to  the 


181 

point  where  he  finds  it  virtually  impossible  to  separate  himself  from 
it  even  if  he  wants  to  ? 

Dr.  Soueif.  Oh,  correct,  I  quite  agree.  I  quite  agree,  and  there  is  no 
point  here  in  raising  any  type  of  semantic  problem  on  it. 

Mr.  Martin.  There  is  one  more  question  I  would  like  to  ask.  I  hope 
you  can  give  us  a  very  brief  summary,  perhaps  in  2  or  3  minutes,  of 
the  major  findings  of  your  classic  study  on  the  total  impact  of  the 
hashish  epidemic  on  the  Egyptian  population,  or  on  that  portion  of 
the  Egyptian  population  that  was  involved  in  long-term  use  of 
hashish. 

Dr.  Soueif.  I  think  you  probably  know  that  I  have  been  involved 
in  this  work  for  the  last  16  or  17  years  with  an  interruption,  to  be 
very  correct,  of  one  year  during  1965-66. 

The  impression,  the  general  impression,  I  can  just  put  forward 
straightaway,  is  that,  if  cannabis  taking  had  not  been  so  endemic  in 
my  country,  I  think  at  least  a  big  proportion  of  my  cocitizens  could 
have  been  with  a  higher  level  of  aspiration  and  sort  of  more  willing- 
ness to  fight  their  life  through  instead  of  rather  leaning  towards 
something  like  lethargy.  I  should  think  so. 

Mr.  Martin.  Their  performance  capability  as  individuals  and  as 
members  of  society  would  have  been  much  greater  had  they  not 
been 

Dr.  Soueif.  Yes,  yes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  am  basing  this  impres- 
sion on  one  simple  point.  I  have  already  made  an  estimate,  and  this 
was  published  in  1967,  about  how  many  regular  takers  would  be 
estimated  in  Egypt,  and  taking  the  estimate  into  consideration,  to- 
gether with  the  fact  that  the  modal  age  for  using  cannabis,  again  at 
home,  is  the  age  between  20  and  40,  which  is  actually  the  climax  of 
productivity  in  a  man's  life,  I  guess  it  is  a  big  sort  of  catastrophe  for 
a  nation  to  have  this  large  number  of  young  men  taking  cannabis 
because  it  is  mainly  a  male  sort  of  phenomenon  at  home,  not  like  in 
the  Western  societies,  females,  the  very  big  majority  do  not  come  to 
it.  So  anyway,  with  the  large  number  of  estimated  cannabis  takers 
compared  with  the  number  of  people  at  this  age  group  who  would  be 
working  productively,  I  think  it  is  really  very  serious. 

Mr.  Martin.  It  would  not  be  inaccurate  to  describe  them  as  partial 
cripples  who  had  lost  a  substantial  percentage  of  their  ability  to 
perform,  either  at  the  manual  level  or  at  the  mental  level? 

Dr.  Soueif.  To  some  extent  one  can  put  it  this  way,  although  I  am 
here  a  bit  impressionistic  I  should  say. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  no  more  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Mr.  Sourwine. 

Mr.  Sourwine.  No  questions,  sir. 


182 


[Chart  submitted  by  Dr.  Soueif  with  his  testimony :] 


SO'/, 


50 


■3   *o 


i     30 


20 


10     - 


0  5  10  15  20  25  30 

Duration    of    hashish    consumption  (in  ytars). 

FIGURE      I.  THE     RELATIONSHIP    BETWEEN     OPIUM     TAKING     AND     DURATION 
OF    HASHISH     CONSUMPTION. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Doctor,  very  much  for  your  fine 
contribution. 

Our  next  witness  is  Dr.  Malcolm.  Would  you  identify  yourself,  Dr. 
Malcolm,  for  the  record? 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  ANDREW  MALCOLM,  TORONTO,  CANADA 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Yes,  my  name  is  Andrew  Malcolm.  I  am  from 
Toronto,  Canada. 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  will  run  through  your  qualifications  in  just  one 
long  question,  Dr.  Malcolm,  which  you  can  answer  at  the  end. 

As  I  understand,  you  graduated  in  medicine  from  the  University 
of  Toronto  in  1951. 

You  undertook  a  psychiatric  residency  at  the  New  York  Hospital 
in  Westchester  County  in  1952. 

You  were  registrar  at  the  Bexley  Hospital  in  London,  England, 
for  2  years  from  1954. 

You  were  senior  psychiatrist  at  Rockland  State  Hospital  in  New 
York  for  3  years  from  1955. 

You  have  a  certificate  of  the  Royal  College  of  Physicians — Canada — 


183 

and  you  are  a  diplomate  of  the  American  Board  of  Psychiatry  and 
Neurology. 

You  were  with  the  Ontario  Addiction  Research  Foundation  in 
Toronto  for  9  years,  during  which  time  you  studied  the  problems  of 
alcoholism,  narcotics,  marihuana  and  solvent-sniffing. 

At  present  you  are  a  full-time  practicing  psychiatrist  and  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Drug  Advisory  Committee  of  the  Ontario  College  of 
Pharmacy. 

You  are  author  of  three  books  in  the  field  of  drugs  which  have 
received  wide  recognition — "The  Pursuit  of  Intoxication,"  "The  Case 
Against  the  Drugged  Mind,"  and  "The  Tyranny  of  the  Group." 

You  have  also  authored  some  60  papers. 

Are  those  statements  an  accurate  summary  of  your  background? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Yes,  pretty  accurate. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Proceed  with  your  statement,  Doctor. 

Dr.  Malcolm.  The  study  of  drug  affliction  of  the  cannabis  type  is 
exceedingly  complex.  I  will  restrict  myself,  however,  to  three  related 
aspects  of  this  study  that  have  been  massively  ignored  in  recent 
years.  I  refer  to  marihuana  and  suggestibility,  marihuana  and  the 
amotivational  state,  and  marihuana  and  the  ideological  conflict. 

1.    ACUTE  EFFECTS SUGGESTIBILITY 

Concerning  the  acute  effects  of  THC  intoxication  much  excellent 
work  has  been  done  in  the  last  few  years.  Virtually  nothing,  how- 
ever, has  been  done  to  determine  the  relationship  between  marihuana 
and  the  vulnerability  of  the  intoxicated  person  to  persuasion.  But 
this  drug  is  an  illusionogen.  In  sufficiently  high  doses  it  is  capable 
of  producing  what  has  been  called  the  altered  state  of  consciousness. 
Such  a  state,  when  it  develops,  has  a  number  of  characteristics  which 
I  have  described  in  some  detail  in  my  book  "The  Pursuit  of  Intoxi- 
cation." (1)  These  include  an  impairment  of  the  ability  to  test  external 
reality  and  a  tendency  to  engage  in  nonlogical  thinking.  Marked 
changes  in  time  sense  and  of  body  image  occur.  Emotional  responses 
are  altered  and  sensory  perception  is  typically  distorted.  The  result 
of  these  myriad  effects  is  the  creation  of  a  person  who  is  funda- 
mentally changed  from  what  he  is  like  in  a  state  of  normal  waking 
consciousness.  His  critical  judgment  is  impaired  and  his  capacity  to 
effect  transactions  with  reality  is  markedly  reduced.  As  a  result  we 
may  say  with  some  certainty  that  such  a  person  would  be  poorly 
defended  against  the  influences  flowing  toward  him  from  the  milieu 
in  which  he  has  consumed  the  drug. 

This,  of  course,  is  an  hypothesis  based  on  much  clinical  observa- 
tion ;  but  it  is  one  that  should  not  be  lightly  dismissed  without  some 
attempt  at  scientific  validation. 

This  theory  was  first  publicly  proposed  by  me  at  the  American 
Orthopsychiatry  Association  Annual  Meeting  in  San  Francisco  in 
March  1970.  In  early  1972,  when  I  was  still  a  staff  psychiatrist  with 
the  Addiction  Research  Foundation  of  Ontario,  I  was  developing  a 
research  study  to  determine  the  relationship  between  THC  intoxica- 
tion and  suggestibility ;  but  I  regret  to  have  to  report  here  that  that 
institution  dismissed  both  this  theory  and  its  principal  investigator 


184 

shortly  after  I  issued  a  public  criticism  of  the  Commission  of 
Inquiry  into  the  Non-Medical  Use  of  Drugs.  This  Commission  had 
advised  the  Government  that  the  simple  possession  of  marihuana 
should  no  longer  be  regarded  as  an  offense  against  the  Criminal  Code 
of  Canada. 

Of  course  a  very  important  part  of  this  theory  is  that  three  vari- 
ables determine  the  degree  to  which  marihuana  can  become  a  factor 
in  the  attitudinal  reorientation  of  any  given  person.  There  is  the 
personality  of  the  user  himself.  He  may  be  extremely  well  defended 
against  the  loss  of  control  that  is  otherwise  typical  of  the  altered 
state  of  consciousness.  However,  not  all  of  the  people  who  are  exposed 
to  marihuana  are  mentally  and  physically  healthy,  psychologically 
mature,  worldly  wise  and  intelligent.  Indeed,  many  of  the  people  who 
are  most  liable  to  be  exposed  to  this  drug  are  either  very  young, 
mentally  unwell,  or  both.  Such  people,  who  have  already  been  in- 
trigued by  the  celebrated  critics  of  every  institution  of  our  society 
might,  on  achieving  the  marihuana  ASC,  be  caused  to  accept  uncriti- 
cally the  belief  that  the  society  is  so  irredeemably  evil  that  total  with- 
drawal from  it  can  only  be  regarded  as  both  necessary  and  virtuous. 

But  apart  from  the  personality  of  the  user  there  is  also  the  potency 
of  the  material  that  is  actually  consumed.  Recent  studies  have  estab- 
lished beyond  any  doubt  that  the  marihuana  effect  is  dose-related.  A 
high  dose  of  THC  given  to  an  unstable  person  who  is  inclined  to  be 
suggestible  in  the  first  place  might  result  in  a  marked  enhancement 
of  his  tendency  to  be  easily  persuaded.  And  this  would  be  particularly 
the  case  if  the  third  variable,  the  milieu,  was  especially  powerful. 
And  by  the  milieu  I  mean  the  setting  in  which  the  vulnerable  person 
takes  the  drug  and,  particularly,  the  charismatic  person  who  is  a  part 
of  that  milieu  and  who  seems  to  exemplify  the  ideal  member  of  the 
disaffiliated  subculture. 

It  is  my  opinion  that  among  the  many  unusual  characteristics  of 
marihuana  use  one  of  the  most  important  is  that  its  users  may  be 
rendered  suggestible  and  that  what  they  consider  to  be  their  volun- 
tary espousal  of  a  new  system  of  values  may  be  due,  in  fact,  to 
influences  beyond  their  conscious  control.  (2) 

2.    CHROXIC    EFFECTS — THE    AMOTIVATIONAL    STATE 

One  exposure  to  marihuana,  even  by  an  immature  person  in  a  setting 
highly  conducive  to  his  alienation  from  the  general  society,  will 
probably  not  result  in  his  immediate  conversion  to  an  entirely  new 
style  of  living.  For  this  to  happen  the  person  must  repeat  the  cycle 
many  times.  He  must  become  a  chronic  or  habitual  user  of  this  drug. 

As  a  clinician,  I  have  seen  numerous  people  who  presented  a  most 
distressing  picture  that  resembled  in  varying  degrees  simple  schiz- 
ophrenia, the  sociopathic  personality,  and  chronic  brain  syndrome. 
That  is  to  say,  these  people  seemed  to  be  lackadaisical,  passive, 
uninterested  in  the  world  around  them  and  demonstrably  unreliable. 
They  would  often  be  verbally  quite  facile  but  the  range  of  their 
thought  and  feeling  would  be  very  limited,  I  might  even  say  impover- 
ished. Their  attention  spans  would  be  short  and  they  would  seem 
interested  only  in  experiencing  each  moment  as  it  occurred  without 


185 

reference  either  to  the  past  or  the  future.  Their  thinking  would  be 
frequently  nonlogical  and  they  would  be  very  fascinated  by  magical 
explanations  for  natural  phenomena.  Absurdities  and  incongruities 
seemed  only  to  amuse  them  in  a  peculiarly  superficial  way.  They 
presented,  in  short,  a  nonintoxicated  version  of  what  actually  happens 
when  a  person  consumes  a  sufficient  quantity  of  marihuana  to  achieve 
a  state  of  disinhibition,  mild  euphoria,  self-centeredness  and  some 
degree  of  detachment  from  reality. 

Now  this  clinical  picture  has  been  called  the  amotivational  state 
and  I  consider  it  to  be  of  the  greatest  importance  that  it  be  either 
confirmed  or  disconfirmed  that  this  condition  develops  in  direct 
response  to  the  chronic  use  of  marihuana.  Most  of  these  patients  give 
me  the  impression  that  they  have  been  repeatedly  persuaded  that  the 
values  and  behaviors  that  characterize  the  inclusive  society  are 
entirely  lacking  in  virtue  even  though  they  are  unable  to  give  an 
informed  argument  to  support  their  own  rigidly  held  beliefs.  In  fact 
they  seem  to  have  been  converted,  through  repeated  exposure  to  the 
drug  and  to  the  milieu  in  which  it  is  used,  to  a  philosophy  of  life 
that  has  very  little  survival  value  in  a  technologically  advanced  and 
liberal  democratic  society. 

3.    THE    IDEOLOGICAL    CONFLICT 

But  therein  lies  a  very  difficult  problem.  A  particular  scientific 
study  may  report  that  THC,  in  sufficient  quantity,  can  bring  about 
hallucinations  and  marked  distortions  of  perception;  but  this  infor- 
mation will  be  examined  by  two  groups  of  people  and  two  entirely 
opposite  interpretations  will  be  offered  regarding  the  significance  of 
these  findings.  The  first  group  will  say  that  the  subjects  have  been 
rendered  psychotic  and  that  the  drug  must,  accordingly,  be  called  a 
psychotomimetic.  These  people  will  be  strongly  opposed  to  the  further 
acculturation  of  this  drug  in  our  society.  They  will  say  that  its  wide- 
spread use  will  injure  many  individuals  and  reduce  the  capacity  of 
the  society  to  maintain  itself. 

The  second  group  will  examine  precisely  the  same  findings  and 
conclude  that  the  drug  is  a  thing  of  inestimable  value.  It  expands 
the  mind.  It  brings  about  enlightenment.  The  drug  is,  therefore,  a 
mind-manifesting  agent,  a  psychedelic.  And  if  only  the  whole  coun- 
try could  be  turned  on  there  would  be  peace  and  joy  at  last.  The 
people  in  this  group  are  the  most  vociferous  apologists  for  mari- 
huana. (3) 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution  in  1972,  I  was  on  a 
panel  with  Dr.  Richard  Blum  and  on  that  occasion  my  distinguished 
American  colleague  pointed  out  that  his  countrymen  were  seeking 
quiescence  through  the  use  of  such  drugs  as  marihuana.  He  said  they 
were  escaping  from  the  complex,  competitive,  high  performance  cul- 
ture which  was,  in  so  many  ways  he  said,  repulsive.  The  effect  of  this 
statement  was,  in  my  opinion,  to  promote  the  use  of  marihuana.  It 
would  seem  that  the  law  was  the  real  problem.  The  drug  was  itself 
relatively  benign  and  therefore  the  only  humane  and  civilized  thing 
to  do  was  to  strike  down  the  law  and  let  the  people  enjoy  this  sweet 
and  quieting  drug. 


186 

Those  who  were  inclined  to  emphasize  the  benignity  of  marihuana 
were  clearly  in  the  ascendant  in  the  early  seventies.  Those  of  us  who 
were  inclined  to  regard  the  drug  as  a  most  deceptive  weed,  to  use 
Dr.  Gabriel  Nahas'  excellent  phrase,  were  being  systematically 
ignored.  This  tendency  clearly  continues  but  there  are  now  some 
encouraging  indications  that  the  words  of  caution  issued  repeatedly 
by  a  rather  small  number  of  us  may  not  have  been  entirely  in  vain.  (5) 

From  a  clinical  point  of  view  we  had  observed  that  the  drug 
hindered  maturation  and  retarded  recovery  from  psychiatric  illness. 
I  had  most  particularly  suggested  that  it  appeared  to  play  some  part 
in  the  creation  and  diffusion  of  the  alienated  subculture.  We  felt  that 
such  a  drug  must  ultimately  have  a  profound  and  deleterious  effect 
on  the  complex  biochemical  processes  of  the  living  organism.  In  very 
recent  years  such  studies,  well  designed,  well  controlled,  and  making 
use  of  quantified  and  active  material  have  served  to  confirm,  again 
and  again,  our  earlier  clinical  impressions.  Most  recently,  the  study 
by  Kolodny  and  Toro  in  St.  Louis  is  an  important  case  in  point.  (4) 
These  workers  reported  that  among  heavy  users  of  marihuana  there 
was  a  marked  suppression  of  the  production  of  male  hormones.  This 
finding,  to  an  observer  of  the  amotivational  state,  might  well  seem  to 
be  a  biochemical  factor  serving  to  reinforce  the  toxic  and  psycho- 
social influences  that  enhance  suggestibility  and  lead,  in  time,  to  the 
development  of  that  unfortunate  state  of  mind  in  which  the  afflicted 
person  seems  to  be  dependent,  bored  and  crucially  lacking  in  energy 
and  motivation. 

The  ideological  conflict  will  continue,  I  have  no  doubt;  but 
eventually  it  will  become  apparent  to  all  but  the  most  thoroughly 
habituated  users  of  cannabis  that  if  this  drug  expands  whatever  is 
contained  within  the  cranium  the  enlightenment  conferred  is  compa- 
rable to  what  one  would  expect  in  a  case  of  hydrocephalus. 

That,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  my  prepared  statement.  Thank  you  very 
much.* 

Mr.  Martin.  I  would  like  to  ask  a  few  questions  of  Dr.  Malcolm. 
Yesterday  Dr.  Kolodny,  who  testified,  mentioned  the  possibility  that 
the  so-called  amotivational  syndrome  to  which  you  referred  might  be 
the  result  of  a  reduction  in  male  hormones  caused  by  the  use  of 
marihuana.  Does  this  make  sense  to  you  ? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Well,  I  was  tremendously  interested  in  the  works 
of  Kolodny  and  Toro  which  have  been  published  in  the  New  England 
Journal  of  Medicine  because  if  indeed  there  is  a  44-percent  suppres- 
sion of  testosterone,  that  would  be  a  biochemical  basis  for  what  I  have 


♦Bibliography  :  1.  Malcolm.  Andrew  I.  The  Pursuit  of  Intoxication.  Simon  &  Schuster, 
New  York,  Revised  Edition,  1972.  388  pp. 

2.  Malcolm.    Andrew   I.    "The  Alienating  Influence   of  Marihuana."  Proceedings  of  the 
Eastern  Psychiatric  Research  Assoc.  15th  Ann.  Meeting,  New  York,  Nov.  7,  1970. 

3.  Malcolm,  Andrew  I.  The  Case  Against  the  Drugged  Mind.  Clarke,  Irwin  &  Company 
Limited,  Toronto.  1973.  204  pp. 

4.  Masters,  William  H.,  Kolodny,  R.  C.  and  Toro,  Gelson.  Paper  published  New  England 
Journal  of  Medicine.  April  IS,  1974. 

5.  Nahas,    Gabriel    G.    Marihuana — Deceptive    Weed.    Raven    Press,    New    York,    1973. 
334  pp. 


187 

observed  for  some  time  as  a  psychosocial  phenomenon,  that  is  to  say, 
passivity,  withdrawal  from  interest  in  general  activities. 

I  would  sav  that  the  cause  of  the  amotivational  state  is  multi- 
factorial but  here  is  evidence  from  another  quarter  supporting  that. 
Mr.  Martin.  You  spoke  about  the  amotivational  syndrome  as 
though  you  feel  that  it  is  not  a  hypothesis  or  an  assumption  but  a 
reality  which  you  encounter  in  the  great  majority  or  all  of  the 
marihuana  users  you  come  across? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  As  a  clinician  I  see  it  as  being  extremely  important 
so  I  really  have  little  doubt  myself  of  the  existence  of  this  phenom- 
enon. I  have  seen  it  very,  very  often  indeed.  It  is  not  really  for  me 
hypothetical  anymore. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  understand.  Dr.  Malcolm,  that  you  had  designed  a 
device— I  do  not  know  how  germane  this  is  to  our  hearing,  but  it  is 
fascinating — which  is  intended  to  stop  an  intoxicated  driver,  no 
matter  what  causes  his  intoxication,  from  getting  into  his  car  and 
starting  it? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Well.  yes.  I  was  concerned  that  the  breathalyzer  did 
not  serve  to  keep  the  intoxicated  driver  from  the  road  today  because 
we  deal  with  multiple  drug  use,  and  alcohol  may  not  have  been  the 
only  thing  a  man  consumed  so  we  needed  something  else  to  determine 
whether  it  is  alcohol,  THC  or  almost  anything  else,  but  the  fact  is  he 
would  be  intoxicated. 

There  have  been  proposals  put  up  elsewhere  of  an  electronic  device 
that  might  prevent  him  from  starting  his  car,  from  turning  on  the 

ignition.  Well,  I  invented  a  very  simple 

Mr.  Martin.  This  is  an  electronic  device  that  would  require  him  to 
perform  certain  complex  functions  ? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Certain  complex  functions  such  as  the  phystester 
which  I  understand  has  been  developed  by  General  Motors. 

Mr.  Martin.  Presumably  he  could  not  perform  this  while  intox- 
icated? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Yes,  it  is  a  test  of  his  capacity  to  show  good  judg- 
ment and  good  eyesight  in  that  case  and  coordination  and  so  on. 

But  I  felt  what  was  needed,  was  actually  needed,  was  a  mechanical 
device  very  simple,  very  inexpensive,  but  still  if  it  were  properly 
designed,  one  which  would  screen  the  greatest  number  of  people  that 
would  be  so  intoxicated  as  to  be  dangerous  on  the  road,  because  27,000 
people  are  killed  every  year,  in  fact,  in  automobile  accidents  caused 
bv  drunk  driving. 

"  This  was  simply  a  combination  lock,  and  the  man  would  be  required 
to  turn  the  dial'to  a  number  of  positions.  A  simple  test  could  be 
designed  to  determine  how  finely  it  should  be  calibrated  and  how 
many  numbers  he  would  have  to  touch  and  only  until  he  had  com- 
pleted this  test  would  he  be  able  to  in  effect  start  the  ignition  of  his 
car.  It  is  a  device  that  is  so  simple  that  I  think  it  might  indeed 
reduce  a  good  deal  of  the  carnage  on  our  roads  if  it  were  developed 
for  use  and  tested.1 

Mr.  Martin.  I  hope  your  device  is  finally  produced.  Dr.  Malcolm, 
and  introduced  into  automobiles,  and  that  it  reduces  the  carnage  on 
our  roads  in  the  future. 


JThis  device,   the  Toxicomb,  is  described  in  "The  Case  Against  the  Drugged  Mind," 
Clarke,  Irwin  and  Co.,  Toronto. 


188 

Coming  back  to  marihuana,  is  there  any  evidence  to  support  the 
assumption  that  people  use  marihuana  as  a  social  stimulant,  and  that 
if  they  use  marihuana  they  won't  use  alcohol  ? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  There  is  absolutely  no  evidence.  It  is  a  myth  that 
has  been  set  forth  over  the  last  few  years  that  marihuana  drives  out 
alcohol  wherever  its  use  becomes  important.  In  fact,  marihuana  is 
added  to  alcohol  and  the  person  now  can  be  described  as  a  multiple 
drug  user,  but  both  drugs  continue  to  be  used  and  I  might  say  in  even 
greater  quantities. 

Mr.  Martin.  What  this  would  mean  is  that  many  of  the  drunken 
drivers  who  are  arrested  as  drunken  drivers  are  probably  drunk  on 
both  alcohol  and  marihuana  ? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  There  is  no  doubt  in  the  future  we  are  going  to  be 
able  to  show  this  is  the  case.  Eight  now  the  drunk  driver  is  by 
definition  drunk  on  alcohol  but  in  fact  he  may  have  taken  one  drink 
and  many  other  drugs.  The  breathalyzer  would  show  it  is  far  under  .1 
milligram  percent  but  he  still  would  not  be  able  to  function  inside  an 
automobile. 

Mr.  Martin.  When  you  get  drunk  on  alcohol  and  marihuana,  is 
there  a  simple  arithmetic  effect  in  which  one  is  added  to  the  other,  or 
is  it  a  synergistic  effect,  a  compounding  effect? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Well,  both  drugs  obviously  have  a  central  nervous 
system  depressant  effect  but  there  are  certain  things  peculiar  to 
marihuana  that  would  greatly  complicate  the  matter.  Judgment  is 
obviously  affected  and  the  interpretation  of  the  meaning  of  various 
symbols  that  we  ordinarily  understand  is  distorted,  too.  The  effect 
of  adding  marihuana  to  alcohol  is  not  similar  to  what  would  happen 
if  you  just  took  more  alcohol.  There  is  a  distortion  of  perception  and 
a  further  impairment  of  judgment  of  a  rather  unusual  kind. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  a  rather  big  question  for  which  I  would  like 
to  have  a  very  brief  answer.  Not  much  is  known  in  this  country  about 
the  Canadian  Le  Dain  report,  but  I  believe  there  are  some  remarkable 
similarities  between  the  Le  Dain  report  and  the  Shafer  report  in  the 
United  States.  Could  you  comment  on  these  briefly,  Dr.  Malcolm  ? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  As  you  say,  that  is  a  difficult  thing  to  say  in  a  word. 
There  are  many  interesting  similarities.  Both  reports  contain  a  great 
deal  of  material  that  would  give  the  general  impression  that  mari- 
huana was  a  relatively  benign  intoxicant  and  not  one  that  would 
represent  a  tremendous  public  hygiene  problem.  The  Le  Dain  report 
in  Canada  actually  proposed  that  the  simple  possession  of  marihuana 
no  longer  be  considered  an  offense  against  the  criminal  code.  A 
similar  recommendation  was  made  by  the  Americans.  That  kind  of 
information  certainly  gives  the  impression  to  the  people  that  they 
need  not  be  unduly  concerned  about  the  increasing  use  of  that  drug. 
Nor  did  they  emphasize  the  fact  that  there  were  far  more  potent 
varieties  of  that  drug  available  now  and  in  the  future.  There  was  a 
lenient  and  permissive  attitude  to  marihuana  on  both  sides  of  the 
border.  Both  Commissions  were  obviously  extremely  selective.  They 
did  not  ask  for  testimony  from  a  number  of  people  who  might  have 
said  things  of  a  more  cautionary  nature.  I  am  very  familiar  with  that 
activity  in  Canada.  I  know  of  many  people  who  were  concerned  about 
marihuana  who  were  not  invited  to  testify,  and  I  know  perfectly 


189 

well  there  were  manv  Americans  and  other  people  who  were  not 
asked  to  testify  here.  So  there  was  a  kind  of  bias  initially  in  favor  of 
improving  the  climate  of  acceptance  of  marihuana  on  the  grounds 
that  it  was  criminalization  that  represented  the  real  problem  and 
not  the  possibly  deleterious  effect  of  the  drug  itself  on  the  general 
population. 

I  think  that  would  be  a  brief  statement  in  response. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  think  you  have  done  remarkably  well  in  the  short 
span  of  time. 

The  final  question  I  would  like  to  ask :  In  your  writings — I  have 
two  of  your  books  at  home — you  have  been  critical  of  the  concept 
known  as  "wise  personal  choice" — that  is,  leave  it  to  the  wisdom  of 
the  individual  citizen — as  a  mechanism  for  the  social  control  of  drugs. 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  you  elaborate  on  this  study  briefly  ? 

Apparently  you  don't  feel  the  decision  can  be  left  to  the  individual  ? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  No. 

The  problem  here  is  that  a  great  many  people  have  suggested  that 
the  answer  to  the  problem  of  drugs  is  to  give  the  people  all  of  the 
information,  all  of  the  facts,  and  then  they  will  make  a  wise  personal 
choice  on  the  basis  of  those  facts. 

Now  this  appears  to  be  a  most  beautiful,  civilized,  humane,  and 
progressive  and  advanced  kind  of  thinking;  and  the  only  problem 
with  it  is  that  it  is  totally  impractical  and  naive  because  not  all  of 
the  vulnerable  people  in  the  general  community  are  able  to  under- 
stand the  facts  or  are  inclined  to  care  about  all  the  facts.  Indeed 
education  is  important,  and  I  am  not  opposed  to  this  at  all,  but  it  is 
very  foolish  to  think  that  giving  the  people  all  the  facts  will  cause 
them  to  make  a  wise  personal  choice. 

It  is  necessary  to  have  some  external  restraint  when,  indeed,  some 
of  the  people  are  incapable  of  exercising  internal  restraint.  But  those 
people  who  propose  wise  personal  choice  usually  are  unalterably 
opposed  to  any  kind  of  external  restraint.  It  is  very  foolish  because 
what  we  need  in  fact  is  both  of  these  elements. 

Mr.  Martix.  A  combination  of  education  and  the  law  ? 

Dr.  Malcolm.  Education  and  the  law,  and  not  one  or  the  other.  It 
is  verv  naive  to  think  that  everyone  is  equally  educable  or  would 
even  be  guided  by  these  facts,  if  they  knew  them.  The  problem  with 
alcohol  in  our  society  is  a  perfect  example  of  the  disastrous  impact 
of  wise  personal  choice.  Indeed  there  is  lots  of  evidence  that  alcohol 
is  a  drug  that  causes  trouble.  It  is  completely  available,  and  no  one 
is  guided  by  the  information  received. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  no  further  questions,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you  very  much,  Dr.  Malcolm,  for  your 
contribution  to  our  svmposium  here. 

Our  next  and  final  witness  is  Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Would  you  identify 
yourself  for  the  record,  Doctor  ? 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  PHILLIP  ZEIDENBERG,  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Yes.  I  am  Dr.  Phillip  Zeidenberg,  research  asso- 
ciate in  psychiatry  at  Columbia  University.  I  am  senior  research 
phychiatrist  at  New  York  State  Psychiatric  Institute. 


33-371    O  -  74  -  14 


190 

Senator  Gurnet.  I  will  make  one  statement  here  about  your  qual- 
ifications and  if  it  is  correct  you  can  answer  yes  at  the  end. 

I  understand  you  are  a  graduate  in  mathematics  magna  cum  laude 
of  Harvard  University. 

You  achieved  your  medical  degree  from  the  College  of  Physicians 
and  Surgeons,  Columbia  University,  in  1958. 

You  received  your  Ph.D.  in  biochemistry  from  Columbia  Univer- 
sity in  1965. 

Your  special  disciplines  are  clinical  psychiatry,  research  in  the 
clinical  and  biochemical  psychopharmacology  of  both  depression  and 
drug  abuse  and  research  in  electroconvulsive  therapy. 

At  the  present  time,  in  addition  to  being  a  research  associate  at 
Columbia  you  are  the  associate  attending  psychiatrist  at  Vanderbilt 
Clinic,  associate  psychiatrist  at  Presbyterian  Hospital,  chairman  of 
the  New  York  State  Psychiatric  Institute  Radiation  Safety  Commit- 
tee, chairman  of  the  Drug  Dependence  Committee  of  New  York  State 
Psychiatric  Institute,  and  director  of  the  methadone  treatment  pro- 
gram of  this  Institute. 

You  have  won  several  fellowships  and  awards,  including  the  Amer- 
ican Medical  Association's  Physician  Recognition  Award  in  1969,  and 
you  have  published  12  papers  including  a  chapter  in  the  medical 
textbook  entitled  "Medical  Aspects  of  Drug  Abuse"  published  in  1974. 

Is  that  statement  of  your  qualifications  accurate? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  That  book  is  in  print.  It  is  1974,  "Drug  Abuse  as 
a  Factor"  and  "Medical  Aspects  of  Drug  Abuse"  now  in  the  press. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Doctor.  Now  you  can  proceed  with 
your  statement. 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  As  I  pointed  out  in  my  recent  article  on  this 
subject *  the  pressure  for  legalization  of  marihuana  without  even 
medical  supervision  so  short  a  time  after  the  beginnings  of  under- 
standing of  its  chemistry,  pharmacology,  and  toxicology  is  unprece- 
dented in  the  history  of  this  country.  I  interpret  this  eagerness  as 
being  in  part  as  backlash  to  excessively  punitive  measures  carried  out 
against  naive  and  noncriminal  individuals,  especially  young  people. 
I  feel  other  factors  are  also  at  work  in  this,  but  the  brevity  of  this 
statement  precludes  going  into  this  complex  issue  in  greater  detail.  I 
will  restrict  my  comments  to  psychiatric  and  pharmacological  haz- 
ards which  must  be  seriously  considered  before  any  irreversible 
legislative  steps  are  taken. 

I  use  the  term  "irreversible"  deliberately,  because  I  wish  to 
emphasize  that  legalization  of  use  of  an  agent  in  society  creates  a 
situation  in  which  the  agent  becomes  embedded  in  the  social  structure 
and  is  virtually  impossible  to  extirpate.  One  need  only  look  at  the 
situation  in  regard  to  alcohol  and  cigarettes  to  realize  this  obvious 
fact.  At  the  present  time,  heavy  chronic  use  of  marihuana  is  a 
relatively  minor  problem  in  this  country  although  large  numbers 
experiment  with  the  drug  briefly  and  intermittently.  There  is  no 
question  in  my  mind  that  legalization  of  marihuana  will  lead  to  a 
large  population  of  chronic  heavy  marihuana  users,  numbering  in  the 


1  Psychopharmacological  Hazards  of  Legalizing  Marijuana  in  the  U.S.  Bulletin,  New 
York  State  District  Branches,  American  Psychiatric  Association  16 :2,  September  1973. 
Phillip  Zeidenberg,   M.D.,   Ph.   D. 


191 

millions,  just  as  prevails  with  alcohol  and  tobacco.  Both  of  these 
latter  agents  exact  a  terrifying;  toll  in  human  life,  suffering,  and 
expense  in  this  country  annually.  I  think  it  is  probable  that  heavy 
marihuana  use  in  our  country  would  create  a  third  at-risk  population 
overlapping  only  in  part  with  the  two  previous  groups  and  further 
add  to  mortality,  morbidity,  and  public  cost.  Anyone  who  doubts  that 
such  a  population  of  individuals  would  develop  need  only  look  at  the 
public  health  figures  from  nations  where  use  is  indigenous.  I  myself 
have  had  the  opportunity  to  carefully  scrutinize  the  situation  in  one 
such  country.2 

What  are  the  possible  public  health  consequences  of  the  develop- 
ment of  a  large  population  of  chronic  heavy  marihuana  smokers  in 
this  country?  I  can  only  summarize  some  of  them  in  the  brief  time 
available. 

CHRONIC  SOMATO-TOXIC  EFFECTS 

Although  much  publicity  has  been  given  to  studies  indicating 
marihuana  as  harmless  by  certain  physiological  criteria,  it  must  be 
emphasized  that  the  number  of  physiological  variables  which  must 
be  studied  is  enormous  before  this  agent  can  be  established  as  safe  or 
at  least  as  safe  as  other  drugs — no  drug  is  perfectly  harmless.  Recent 
reports  have  indicated  that  this  agent  may  be  more  dangerous  than 
was  first  realized.  A  group  of  workers  at  the  Reproductive  Biology 
Research  Foundation  in  St.  Louis  have  recently  reported  depression 
of  plasma  testosterone  levels  after  chronic  intensive  marihuana  use. 
Thirty-five  percent  of  these  men  showed  reduced  sperm  counts.3  This 
ties  in  with  an  earlier  report  of  gynecomastia  in  marihuana  users.4 

Nahas  and  coworkers  at  Columbia  5  have  demonstrated  inhibition 
of  cellular  mediated  immunity  of  51  young  chronic  marihuana 
smokers.  They  postulated  that  this  may  be  due  to  direct  impairment 
of  DNA  synthesis  by  the  agent.  On  the  other  hand,  the  findings  of 
Nahas  may  be  hormonally  mediated  and  thus  related  to  the  findings 
of  the  St.  Louis  group.  I)NA  synthesis  may  be  secondarily  inhibited 
by  effect  of  the  drug  on  hormones  via  the  central  nervous  system. 
Much  more  work  is  needed  in  this  area  to  clarify  this  matter. 

Since  time  is  limited,  I  will  only  mention  other  possible  toxic 
effects  which  need  consideration. 

(a)  Chronic  marihuana  smoking  causes  bronchitis,  diminished  lung 
capacity,  and  abnormal  microscopic  changes  in  lung  tissue.  In  the 
long  run,  chronic  marihuana  smoking  may  have  many  of  the  pul- 
monary effects  of  tobacco.  Furthermore,  in  many  places  where  it  is 
used,  marihuana  is  diluted  with  tobacco,  so  that  legalization  of  this 
agent  will  incidentally  promote  use  of  a  known  harmful  agent  which 
the  Federal  Government  is  now  spending  large  sums  to  reduce  the 
use  of. 

(b)  Recent  reports  on  chromosomal  damage  by  marihuana  need  to 
be  considered  and  reinvestigated  seriously.  Although  they  are  in  con- 
flict with  earlier  reports,  they  come  from  highly  reliable  sources  and 


*Kif  in  Morocco  by  Gabriel  G.  Nahas,  M.D.,  Ph.  D.,  Phillip  Zeidenberg,  M.D.    Ph.  D., 
and  Claude  LeFebure',  M.S.,   International   Journal   of  the   Addictions    in   press    (lH7d). 
3Kolodny,  R.  C,  et  al.  New  England  Journal  of  Medicine  290  :872  (1974)  MQ_0. 

*  Harmon.  J.  and  Abapoulios,  M.  A.  New  England  Journal  of  Medicine  287  :«db  (iy7J). 
6  Nahas,  G.  G.,  et  al.  Science  183  :419  (1974). 


192 

would  tend  to  mesh  with  the  previously  mentioned  research  on  hor- 
mones and  cell-mediated  immunity.  This  area  needs  to  be  carefully 
investigated  before  final  conclusions  are  drawn. 

(c)  The  issue  of  possible  associations  between  heavy  cannabis  use 
and  brain  damage  or  permanent  behavioral  alteration  has  become 
hopelessly  confused  by  a  maze  of  conflicting,  poorly  controlled,  and 
difficult  to  interpret  reports.  No  definite  conclusions  can  be  drawn 
at  this  time  but  this  is  a  priority  research  issue.  No  irreversible 
legislative  steps  should  be  taken  until  this  issue  is  clarified. 

ACUTE  AND  CHRONIC  PSYCHIATRIC  AND  BEHAVIORAL  EFFECTS 

There  is  no  doubt  that  a  single  dose  of  tetrahydrocannabinol  can 
cause  an  acute  psychotic  reaction  in  mentally  healthy  individuals. 
One  of  our  subiects  in  a  small  pilot  study  with  oral  delta-9  tetrahydro- 
cannabinol had  an  acute  paranoid  break  lasting  several  hours.  This 
young  man  is  of  unquestionably  sound  mental  health. 

Marihuana  use  is  also  associated  with  longer  lasting  and  even 
chronic  psychoses.  Many  of  these  individuals,  but  not  all,  are  found 
to  have  a  previous  history  of  serious  mental  illness.  The  remaining 
are  often  loosely  dismissed  as  prepsychotic  or  latently  psychotic  indi- 
viduals. It  must  be  emphasized  that  this  is  an  operationally  meaning- 
less statement  making  use  of  facile  psychiatric  jargon.  It  is  not  of 
much  consolation  to  an  ex  prepsychotic,  made  ex  by  an  hallucinogenic 
drug  like  THC  who  might  have  otherwise  made  it  to  a  ripe  old  age 
still  prepsychotic,  a  condition  operationally  indistinguishable  from 
nonpsychotic.  It  behooves  us  to  investigate  this  aspect  of  the  drug 
more  scientifically  before  it  is  made  widely  available. 

I  wanted  to  add  parenthetically  here  in  knowing  some  of  the 
remarks  made  previously  that  the  capacity  of  marihuana,  generally 
acknowledged  to  exacerbate  underlying  mental  conditions,  is  some- 
thing which  tends  to  be  dismissed  because  of  prejudices  which  we 
have  in  this  country  against  mental  illness  as  an  illness. 

Now,  to  take  a  physical  analogy  we  know  that  a  great  percentage 
of  our  population  carries  within  it  dormantly  the  herpes  simplex 
virus  and  if  anyone  were  to  suggest  the  introduction  of  an  agent 
which  would  greatly  increase  the  rate  of  appearance  of  active  herpes 
simplex  this  agent  would  immediately  be  stricken  from  use.  But  the 
idea  of  introducing  an  agent  which  activates  mental  illness  is  some- 
thing which  does  not  seem  to  be  so  reprehensible  to  individuals,  and 
this  is  a  part  of  the  general  public  misunderstanding  of  the  nature 
of  mental  illness,  in  my  opinion. 

As  far  as  the  effect  of  marihuana  on  behavior  of  normal  indi- 
viduals is  concerned,  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  impairs  normal  func- 
tioning. In  our  work6  we  have  found  it  to  interfere  with  memory, 
speech,  and  pain  perception.  Numerous  other  studies,  more  extensive 
than  ours,  and  involving  other  parameters,  show  that  much  normal 
behavior  in  our  society  is  not  possible  under  the  agent.  Driver  per- 
formance,   for  example,   is   significantly   impaired.   Thus  extensive 


8  "Effect  of  Oral  Administration  of  delta-9  THC  on  Memory,  Speech  and  Perception 
of  Thermal  Stimulation."  bv  Phillip  Zeidenbers:.  W.  Crawford  Clark,  Joseph  Jafice. 
Samuel  W.  Anderson,  Susan  Chin,  and  Sidney  Malitz.  Comprehensive  Psychiatry 
14:549    (1973). 


193 

marihuana   use  may  bring  us   an   entirely  new   at-risk  population 
suffering  from  some  of  the  detriments  of  both  tobacco  and  alcohol. 

In  our  work,  which  we  did,  we  verified  quantitatively  some  of  the 
observations  made  bv  Drs.  Kolansky  and  Moore  earlier  today  about 
the  flow  of  speech.  We  found  that  marihuana  interferes  with  imme- 
diate memorv  and  thereby  directly  interferes  with  the  flow  of  speech 
giving  the  characteristic  marihuana  speech  which  is  so  well  known. 

Possibly  the  issue  of  greatest  importance  in  the  area  of  behavioral 
toxicity  of  marihuana  is  the  question  of  the  amotivational  syndrome. 
This  problem  is  frequently  dismissed  by  those  favoring  legalization 
as  a  syndrome  that  is  brought  about  by  coexisting  psychiatric  diffi- 
culties in  those  individuals  who  coincidentally  use  marihuana,  or 
alternatively,  it  is  written  off  as  something  which  is  brought  about 
by  hopeless  socioeconomic  conditions  in  backward  third  world 
nations.  Nevertheless,  this  syndrome  is  seen  consistently  in  virtually 
all  studies  of  chronic  users  in  all  countries  and  there  are  no  reliable 
ways  of  measuring  the  subtle  changes  in  mental  state  that  might 
cause  such  a  syndrome.  This  type  of  apathy  and  alienation  may  be 
brought  about  by  drug-induced  changes  in  capacity  for  attention, 
concentration,  and  motivation  for  which  we  have  no  adequate  meas- 
ures. The  history  of  psychiatry  is  full  of  unwarranted  assumptions 
about  psychological  causation  that  later  proved  to  be  erroneous.  If  we 
are  contemplating  legitimizing  this  agent,  it  behooves  us  to  investi- 
gate this  phenomenon  thoroughly  with  refined  psychophysiological 
techniques. 

•  And  let  us  not  deceive  ourselves  that  this  phenomena  can't  happen 
here  in  our  socioeconomically  advanced  society.  There  have  been 
clinical  reports  of  this  syndrome  in  chronic  younger  users  here. 
Furthermore,  the  assumption  that  withdrawal  into  chronic  cannabis 
use  is  a  response  to  socioeconomically  deprived  conditions  not  found 
in  this  country  is  unwarranted  and  shows  more  pride  and  arrogance 
than  judgment  and  intelligence.  I  have  seen  personally  a  society  in 
which  de  facto  legalization  of  this  drug  has  created  a  large  number 
of  people  with  the  amotivational  syndrome.  The  majority  of  people 
in  this  society,  although  poor,  are  hard  working,  intelligent,  highly 
animated  and  motivated,  and  not  using  marihuana.  To  regard  our- 
selves as  immune  to  this  syndrome  is  not  only  potentially  destructive 
to  our  own  society  but  an  affront  to  our  foreign  neighbors  who  have 
more  pragmatic  experience  with  this  problem  and  with  whom  we 
have  existing  treaties  to  outlaw  this  drug.  Clinical  experience  is  often 
made  light  of  in  this  era  of  controlled  scientific  studies.  I  do  not 
wish  to  minimize  the  value  of  scientific  work.  I  merely  suggest  that 
a  thousand  years  of  clinical  wisdom  are  not  to  be  dismissed  by  a  few 
preliminary  scientific  studies. 

Finally,  I  wish  to  discuss  my  point  of  view  on  the  social  aspect  of 
this  problem.  I  feel  that  the  President's  commission  on  marihuana 
and  drug  abuse  was  correct  in  stating  that  the  problem  of  marihuana 
is  only  one  problem  in  the  spectrum  of  drug  abuse.  Alcoholism, 
cigarette  smoking,  and  opiate  abuse  all  outrank  marihuana  in  magni- 
tude as  public  health  problems.  It  has  been  argued  that  marihuana  is 
already  freely  available  and  that  a  situation  prevails  akin  to  that  of 
prohibition,  in  which  excessively  punitive  measures  are  employed 


194 

against  those  using  "bootleg"  marihuana  while  others  use  legal  alcohol 
and  tobacco  freely.  It  has  been  stated  that  legal  marihuana  would 
merely  continue  to  be  a  minor  problem  in  the  United  States. 

I  believe  there  are  dangerous  psychological  errors  in  these  view- 
points. Each  of  us  has  within  him  a  certain  capacity  to  commit 
antisocial  acts,  varying  with  the  individual  and  his  circumstances.  It 
will  be  noted  from  the  Third  Report  on  Marihuana  and  Health  that 
the  use  of  cannabis  in  the  United  States  has  not  increased  dramati- 
cally, despite  readv  availability.  I  believe  this  is  because  of  the  fact 
of  its  illegality.  Illegality  is  a  cutoff  point  which  separates  the  vast 
majority  of  the  population  from  those  with  psychopathology  suffi- 
ciently great  to  drive  them  to  commit  the  repeated  antisocial  acts 
necessary  to  use  it  regularly.  I  believe  that  legalization  will  turn  on 
a  "green  light"  which  will  enormously  increase  the  number  of  chronic 
heavy  users,  just  as  it  has  in  every  other  country  where  de  facto 
legalization  exists.  Once  this  happens,  marihuana  will  become  an 
integral  part  of  our  social  structure  and  take  on  complicated  social 
and  symbolic  significance  as  tobacco  and  alcohol  already  have.  Once 
this  happens,  it  will  be  virtually  impossible  to  remove  it,  and  any 
attempts  to  remove  it  will  indeed  be  regarded  as  prohibition,  as  was 
the  case  with  alcohol  and,  in  some  instances,  tobacco.  Before  the  drug 
takes  on  this  social  and  symbolic  significance,  laws  against  it  are  not 
the  equivalent  of  prohibition.  Prohibition,  as  we  understand  it  in  this 
country,  is  not  prohibition  in  the  literal  or  restricted  sense  of  the 
words,  but  a  complex  memory  extrapolated  from  the  events  of  the 
1920's.  As  such,  it  does  not  apply  to  marihuana  restrictions. 

On  the  other  hand,  certain  realities  about  marihuana  must  be  faced. 
It  is  impossible  to  cut  off  the  supply  of  this  agent.  It  will  always  be 
readily  available  and  there  will  always  be  a  subsegment  of  our  popu- 
lation willing  to  take  the  risk  of  experimenting  with  it.  Ultrapunitive 
measures  taken  against  individuals  occasionally  using  the  drug  can 
only  lead  to  the  backlash  of  pressure  for  legalization.  Offenders 
should  be  given  light,  but  significant  sentences,  enough  to  be  a 
sufficient  deterrent  to  repeated  use.  Chronic  heavy  users  should  be 
offered  psychiatric  treatment,  not  jail.  This  alternative  should  be 
reserved  for  hardened  profiteers  and  sellers.  Our  job  is  to  prevent 
marihuana  from  becoming  an  embedded  social  phenomenon.  Eradi- 
cation by  legal  measures  is  a  hopeless  fantasy.  The  job  of  the  law  is 
to  find  the  appropriate  deterrent  so  that  the  marihuana  problem  is 
kept  as  a  minor  drug-abuse  problem  without  crucifying  errant  ado- 
lescents. On  the  other  hand,  legalization  will  open  a  Pandora's  box 
which  we  may  not  be  able  to  cope  with  for  centuries,  or  ever. 

Senator  Gurnet.  Thank  you,  Doctor. 

Mr.  Martin. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  just  a  few  questions  for  Dr.  Zeidenberg.  You 
say  on  page  8  of  your  testimony  that  alcoholism,  cigarette  smoking, 
and  opiate  abuse  all  outrank  marihuana  in  magnitude  as  public  health 
problems. 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Yes,  I  am  talking  in  terms  of  numbers  and  cost. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  terms  of  numbers  of  people  involved  ? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Yes,  in  numbers  of  people  involved. 

Mr.  Martin.  But  do  they  outrank  it — marihuana — in  terms  of  the 
damage  it  does  to  the  individual  involved  ? 


195 

Dr.  Zeidexberg.  Well,  I  think  that  marihuana  is  as  capable  as 
alcohol  and  tobacco  of  causing  damage  to  the  individual. 

Mr.  Martin.  From  your  observations  and  from  your  reading 
would  you  agree  with  the  estimates  that  have  already  been  offered 
that  marihuana  exposure — regular  exposure  over  a  1-  or  2-year 
period — is  capable  of  inflicting  irreversible  brain  damage? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  I  think  there  is  evidence  to  point  in  that  direction. 
However,  I  think  that  there  is  conflicting  evidence  and  I  think  that 
is  something  which  needs  more  work  and  needs  to  be  clarified.  There 
is,  however,  the  distinct  possibility  that  that  may  occur. 

Mr.  Martin.  If  that  in  fact  were  established,  it  would  be  a  sub- 
stantially more  dangerous  drug  than  alcohol  or  tobacco? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Well,  alcohol  causes  brain  damage  if  used  chronic- 
ally. 

Mr.  Martin.  Not  over  a  2-year  period? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Well,  it  usually  takes  longer  than  that  and,  of 
course,  tobacco,  I  wish  that  somebody  would  clarify  that  with  regard 
to  tobacco,  but  I  certainly  think  it  is  a  dangerous  drug  and  it  may 
very  well  prove  to  cause  brain  damage. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  it  not  also  be  more  dangerous— we  are  talking 
about  potential  as  well  as  about  the  situation  that  exists  today — be- 
cause of  its  easy  accessibility  and  because  of  the  ease  with  which  it 
can  be  used  by  very  young  children?  For  example,  a  grade  school 
kid  can't  take  a  quart  of  alcohol  and  hide  it  in  his  pocket  and  go 
down  into  the  washroom,  before  school  or  at  the  noon  break,  and 
drink  it. 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Right,  very  much  more  dangerous,  and  also  more 
dangerous  in  the  sense  it  cannot  be  detected,  at  least  not  at  the  present 
time,  and  as  was  pointed  out  earlier  by  one  of  the  previous  speakers, 
a  child  who  needs  an  education  can  go  into  the  washroom  and  smoke 
a  couple  of  marihuana  cigarettes  in  the  morning  and  not  learn  a 
single  thing  for  the  rest  of  the  day  and  nobody  is  going  to  know  it. 

A  kid  who  goes  into  the  bathroom  and  has  a  couple  of  shots  of 
whiskey  in  the  morning  certainly  is  going  to  be  detected  after  a 
while  and  receive  some  kind  of  treatment. 

Mr.  Martin.  It  is  one  of  the  "safety  factors"  built  into  alcohol 
use,  if  you  wish  to  use  the  expression? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  So  it  seems. 

Mr.  Martin.  The  boy  who  drinks  is  intoxicated  and  staggers  and 
the  staggering  gives  him  away — that  does  not  happen  with  mari- 
huana? 

Dr.  Zeddenberg.  Right. 

Dr.  Martin.  One  more  question  and  then  I  think  I  will  be 
through. 

You  say  on  page  9  of  your  testimony  that  the  Third  Report  on 
Marihuana  and  Health — this  is  from  the  Secretary  of  HEW  to  Con- 
gress- 


Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin  [continuing].  "Reports  that  the  use  of  marihuana  in 
the  United  States  has  not  increased  dramatically."  I  don't  know 
whether  you  have  had  occasion,  Dr.  Zeidenberg,  to  look  at  the  charts 
submitted  to  the  subcommittee  last  week  bv  the  Drug  Enforcement 


196 

Administration,  showing  a  staggering  increase  over  a  5-year  basis  in 
the  rate  of  interdictions  of  marihuana  and  hashish  coming  into  the 
United  States  or  targeted  at  the  United  States.  Marihuana  interdic- 
tions went  up  tenfold  to  780,000  pounds,  hashish  went  up  twenty-five 
fold  over  a  5-year  period  to  55,000  pounds.  These  were  seizures  made 
by  Federal  agents  only — these  figures  do  not  reflect  seizures  at  local 
levels.  What  this  means,  in  effect,  is  that  our  law  enforcement  author- 
ities probably  seized  substantially  more  than  a  million  pounds  of 
marihuana  and  70,000  pounds  of  hashish. 

If  you  want  to  be  very  conservative,  multiply  7  or  8 — some  people 
say  io — and  you  have  an  idea  of  the  amount  consumed.  It  comes  to 

7  or  8  million  pounds  of  marihuana,  600,000  pounds  of  hashish.  These 
figures  certainly  do  not  suggest,  would  you  agree,  that  the  marihuana 
epidemic  is  receding  or  diminishing  ? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Well,  they  certainly  do  not  seem  to  correspond  to 
the  report  of  HEW  on  marihuana  and  health  which  says  that  the 
increase  has  not  been  dramatic.  Those  figures  are  certainly  very  dra- 
matic. 

Mr.  Martin.  There  was  also  a  graph  showing  a  parallel  upward 
curve  in  the  rate  of  arrests  by  local  and  Federal  authorities  for  can- 
nabis offenses — it  just  went  up  at  an  angle  of  about  60  degrees — so  that 
all  the  indices  appear  to  conform  on  this  point.  And  the  question  is, 
where  do  the  authors  of  the  Third  Report  get  their  estimates  ? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  I  do  not  know.  I  think  you  will  have  to  ask  them. 

Mr.  Martin.  It  is  a  good  point. 

The  Shafer  Commission  actually  last  year  in  their  final  report 
said  that  in  1972  there  had  been  an  8-percent  increase  in  the  rate  of 
cannabis  use  over  1972.  We  have  no  figures  for  1973,  but  if  it  were 

8  percent  for  1973  it  would  still  indicate  a  16-percent  increase  over 
a  2-year  period,  lower  than  the  other  figures  suggested  but  still  very 
significant.  It  does  not  suggest  a  tapering  off. 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  No. 

Mr.  Martin.  So  on  the  basis  of  any  available  information  from 
official  Government  sources,  the  question  arises  how  could  they  come 
to  this  conclusion  ? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  It  is  a  bit  surprising.  I  must  say  in  my  own  clinical 
practice  I  do  not  get  the  subjective  feeling  that  marihuana  use  is 
tapering  off.  I  still  hear  about  it,  I  hear  about  it  more  and  more 
from  my  patients.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  becoming  taken  for 
granted. 

I  am  afraid  that  the  drug  is  acculturing,  becoming  part  of  the 
society  in  spite  of  the  red  light  of  illegality.  I  hope,  for  one,  that 
that  does  not  happen,  but 

Mr.  Martin.  You  speak  about  the  red  light  of  illegality.  Are 
there  any  red  lights  on  in  our  academic  community  or  in  our  media? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Well,  generally,  I  think,  the  media  tends  to,  in  my 
own  reading  of  the  media  I  don't  think  the  media  tends  to  empha- 
size the  negative  aspect  of  marihuana.  They  tend  to  emphasize  what 
has  been  spoken  of  as  the  harmless  effects  of  the  drug. 

No,  I  do  not  think  the  media  have  put  out  a  red  light. 

Mr.  Martin.  Has  the  academic  community  put  out  a  red  light? 


197 

Dr.  Zeidexberg.  No,  generally  speaking,  I  would  not  say  they  haye. 

Mr.  Martin.  So  we  have  here — Dr.  Malcolm  has  made  the  point 
that  in  order  to  control  this  you  have  to  have  a  combination  of  an 
educational  program  and  the  law.  We  have  the  law,  we  do  not  have 
the  educational  program  today? 

Dr.  Zeidexberg.  That  is  true. 

Mr.  Martin.  So  our  defenses  are  defective  in  that  sense. 

Do  you  have  any  further  comment  you  would  like  to  make  on  the 
third  report  of  the" Secretary  of  HEW  on  marihuana  to  the  Congress? 

Dr.  Zeidenberg.  Well,  I  had  a  number  of  comments.  I  don't  know 
that  the  time  allows  to  comment  on  this,  on  so  much.  Their  statement, 
for  example,  that  the  typical  marihuana  dealer  is  not  a  street  dealer 
of  such  drugs  as  heroin  or  cocaine,  he  is  typically  himself  a  user,  a 
middle  class,  not  otherwise  involved  in  criminal  activity  and  his  sell- 
ing is  closely  correlated  with  his  level  of  use,  I  really  wonder  how 
they  know  this,  I  don't  believe  it  to  be  true.  In  my  own  experience 
I  have  seen  many  people  who  are  very  deeply  into  the  business  of 
selling  marihuana  for  a  profit.  I  am  afraid  there  is  just  two  much 
here  for  me  to  comment  on  in  the  brief  time. 

Mr.  Marttx.  You  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  some  of  the  seizures 
over  the  past  18  months  have  run  into  the  multiton  range — 12  tons  of 
hashish,  3,700  pounds  of  hashish,  20  tons  of  marihuana,  43  tons  of 
marihuana.  Someone  is  operating  on  a  big  scale? 

Dr.  Zeidexberg.  Yes,  I  believe  that  is  true.  I  am  not  personally 
acquainted  with  this.  I  did  read  an  article  in  Time  magazine  some 
time  back  about  a  good  deal  of  criminal  activity  associated  with 
marihuana  importation  across  the  border  from  Mexico  into  Arizona, 
taking  place  between  Phoenix  and  Tucson.  That  certainly  was  not  the 
operation  of  small-scale  operators  who  were  just  selling  it  themselves 
for  fun. 

Mr.  Martix.  I  believe  I  have  gone  beyond  my  time  limit,  Mr. 
Chairman.  That  concludes  my  questions. 

Senator  Gurxey.  Gentlemen,  I  want  to  thank  all  of  you  for  com- 
ing here  today  and  taking  time  away  from  your  medical  practice  and 
your  profession,  your  research  or  teaching  or  whatever  your  work 
may  be  and  making  this  contribution  in  our  effort  to  find  out  as 
much  as  we  can  about  the  effects  of  marihuana  on  our  population, 
especially  our  youth.  Certainly  not  only  is  it  a  domestic  problem  here 
in  the  United  States,  which  is  constantly  growing,  but  it  is  a  world- 
wide problem  in  many  other  countries  as  well,  and  I  especially  want 
to  thank  our  foreign  visitors,  visitors  from  other  nations  abroad,  for 
coming  such  long  distances  to  help  us  out  in  our  quest  for  informa- 
tion, too. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

The  subcommittee  is  adjourned  subject  to  the  call  of  the  Chair. 
[Whereupon,  at  1 :05  p.m.,  the  subcommittee  adjourned  subject  to 
call  of  the  Chair.] 


MARIHUANA-HASHISH  EPIDEMIC  AND  ITS  IMPACT  ON 
UNITED  STATES  SECURITY 


MONDAY,  MAY  20,   1974 

U.S.  Senate, 
Subcommittee  To  Investigate  the 
Administration  of  the  Internal  Security  Act 

and  Other  Internal  Security  Laws 

of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  D.G. 

The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  notice,  at  2:30  p.m.,  in  room 
2228,  Dirksen  Senate  Office  Building,  Senator  Strom  Thurmond,  pre- 
siding. 

Also  present :  David  Martin,  senior  analyst. 

Senator  Thurmond.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order.  This  is 
the  fourth  in  a  series  of  hearings  by  the  Senate  Subcommittee  on 
Internal  Security  dealing  with  the  marihuana -hashish  epidemic,  and 
its  impact  on  the  U.S.  security. 

Last  Thursday  the  subcommittee  took  testimony  from  a  panel  of 
seven  internationally  distinguished  medical  scientists.  On  Friday 
we  took  the  testimony  of  a  similar  panel  of  scientists  assembled  from 
many  parts  of  the  world.  Although  I  could  not  attend  these  hearings 
because  of  other  pressing  Senate  duties,  except  for  a  few  minutes,  I 
had  them  monitored  by  my  staff.  I  have  been  told  that  the  scientific 
evidence  presented  at  these  hearings  established  beyond  any  question 
that  marihuana  and  hashish  are  very  dangerous  drugs  that  do  per- 
manent damage  to  the  brain ;  that  there  was  also  evidence  presented 
that  there  is  serious  damage  to  the  reproductive  system,  and  danger 
of  genetic  damage  and  mutation. 

Today  we  shall  be  concluding  this  series  of  hearings.  Our  first 
witness  will  be  a  medical  scientist,  Dr.  Julius  Axelrod 1  of  NIH, 
who  won  the  Nobel  Prize  in  1970;  our  second  witness  will  be  Dr. 
Conrad  Schwarz,  a  distinguished  Canadian  psychiatrist  from  Van- 
couver; our  third  witness  will  be  Prof.  Hardin  Jones  of  Berkeley, 
one  of  this  country's  most  eminent  scientists,  who  is  qualified  in 
many  different  disciplines  in  the  general  field  of  medicine  and  science. 
Dr.  Jones  and  Mr.  Keith  Cowan  of  Canada,  who  follows  him,  will 
be  dealing  with  the  causes  contributing  to  the  spread  of  the  cannabis 
epidemic  in  our  country,  and  internationally,  and  what  can  be  done 
to  combat  the  epidemic. 

1  The  testimony  of  Dr.  Julius  Axelrod  was  ordered  to  be  printed  with  the  testimony  of 
other  scientists  on  May  16  and  may  be  found  on  p.  142. 

(199) 


200 

To  save  time,  will  all  witnesses  rise  and  be  sworn  in  at  the  same 
time,  at  one  time  as  a  group  ?  Would  you  raise  your  right  hands  ? 

Will  the  evidence  that  you  give  in  this  hearing  be  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  so  help  you  God? 

Dr.  Axelrod.  Yes. 

Dr.  Schwarz.  Yes. 

Professor  Jones.  Yes. 

Mr.  Cowan.  Yes. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Have  a  seat. 

Dr.  Schwarz  we  would  be  pleased  to  hear  from  you  now.  If  you 
would  please  identify  yourself  for  the  record,  and  state  your  qualifi- 
cations. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DR.  CONRAD  SCHWARZ 

Dr.  Schwarz.  I  am  Conrad  J.  Schwarz,  and  I  am  a  graduate 
in  medicine  of  the  University  of  Glasgow,  licensed  as  a  practicing 
physician  in  the  Province  of  British  Columbia,  Canada.  I  hold  a 
fellowship  qualification  in  psychiatry  from  the  Royal  College  of 
Physicians  and  Surgeons  of  Canada. 

Mr.  Martin.  Could  you  raise  your  voice,  Dr.  Schwarz,  or  bring 
the  microphone  closer  to  you? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  I  am  a  consultant  psychiatrist  to  the  Student 
Health  Service  and  clinical  associate  professor  in  the  Department 
of  Psychiatry,  University  of  British  Columbia.  I  am  chairman  of  the 
Drug  Habituation  Committee  of  the  British  Columbia  Medical  As- 
sociation, a  member  of  the  Methadone  Advisory  Committee  of  the 
Canadian  Government  Department  of  National  Health  and  Welfare, 
and  a  member  of  the  board  of  directors  of  the  Narcotic  Addiction 
Foundation  of  British  Columbia. 

Senator  Thurmond.  You  may  proceed  now  with  your  statement, 
Doctor. 

Dr.  Schwarz.  I  would  like  to  first  of  all  indicate  that  as  a  prac- 
ticing physician  and  psychiatrist,  my  approach  is  essentially  clinical 
rather  than  scientific.  Thus,  rather  than  seeking  to  demonstrate 
isolated  cause-and-effeet  relationships,  the  process  consists  of  the 
gradual  accumulation  of  observations  from  which  deductions  can  be 
made  of  value  in  the  diagnosis,  treatment,  and  prevention  of  illness 
in  human  beings. 

In  the  case  of  cannabis,  over  the  past  6  years,  I  have  made  an 
extensive  survey  of  the  literature,  examined  many  users,  participated 
in  private,  public,  and  professional  lectures  and  debates,  and  refined 
my  thoughts  in  a  series  of  published  papers.  From  this  ongoing 
process,  I  have  formed  certain  clinical  opinions  which  have  been 
successfully  applied  in  practice  and  teaching,  and  which  I  have 
found  to  be  corroborated  by  many  other  physicians  working  in  their 
own  ways.  Of  particular  interest  is  the  fact  that  many  users  of 
cannabis  have  agreed  with  much  of  this  material  when  it  has  been 
brought  to  their  attention  and  a  number  of  them  have  discontinued 
use  of  cannabis  with  significant  improvement  in  their  health. 

Most  of  the  details  of  my  thinking  on  this  subject  are  contained 
in  the  selection  of  four  papers  marked  (1),  (2),  (3),  and  (4),  which 
I  have  made  available  to  the  subcommittee.  In  addition  I  have  sub- 


201 

mitted  three  appendices  marked  (A),  (B),  and  (C),  which  detail 
the  advice  given  in  2  successive  years  by  overwhelming  majorities 
at  the  annual  meetings  of  the  General  Council — governing  body — of 
the  Canadian  Medical  Association  when  the  Canadian  public  were 
clearly  advised  against  the  nonmedical  use  of  cannabis. 

I  will  try,  briefly,  to  cover  those  points  which  merit  emphasis  in 
relation  to  cannabis.  In  the  first  place,  there  is  a  need  to  correct 
some  of  the  prevalent  myths  about  the  history  of  this  drug.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  cannabis  was  used  for  pleasure  before  about  the 
10th  century  A.D.,  in  the  Middle  East  or  in  India.  Some  writers 
appear  to  have  used  isolated  references  in  ancient  manuscripts  to 
what  might,  or  might  not  have  been  cannabis,  to  give  a  false  sense 
of  ancient  respectability  to  it. 

Ever  since  its  use  for  intoxication  was  recognized,  persistent  cau- 
tionary statements  have  been  made  by  close  observers  of  cannabis.  It 
should  be  emphasized  that  many  of  the  new  observations  on  the 
adverse  effects  of  cannabis,  which  are  now  beginning  to  pour  into 
the  medical  journals,  are  but  modern  terminological  refinements  of 
observations  of  clinicians  and  others  in  the  old  literature. 

For  example,  the  statement  of  Ali  al-Hariri,  the  13th  century 
Moslem  religious  leader  quoted  in  paper  (3),  who  made  the  clinical 
observation  that  cannabis  was  retained  in  the  body,  and  had  con- 
tinuing effects,  for  up  to  40  days.  Recent  scientific  measurements — 
the  work  of  Dr.  Axel  rod's  group  in  particular — have  so  far  con- 
firmed the  presence  of  THC  and  its  metabolites  for  at  least  8  days 
in  the  human  body. 

Again,  as  indicated  in  paper  (3),  the  major  national  commission 
studies  of  cannabis  all  contain  a  considerable  amount  of  cautionary 
clinical  material,  the  significance  of  which  has  been  lost  to  the  general 
public  because  of  media  preoccupation  with  the  philosophical,  politi- 
cal, and  legal  discussions  in  these  reports.  This  statement  even  applies 
to  the  often  quoted  but  apparently  seldom  read  Indian  Hemp  Drugs 
Commission  Report  of  1893-1894. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  this  physician,  the  overwhelming  mass 
of  evidence  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  the  use  of  cannabis  consti- 
tutes a  significant  health  hazard.  The  evidence  for  this  conclusion 
is  detailed  in  the  references  in  the  four  papers  and  in  appendix 
(A)  and  can  be  summarized  as  follows: 

(1)  Cannabis  is  a  complex  plant  with  many  chemical  ingredients, 
the  nature  and  action  of  which  are  largely,  but  are  not  entirely  un- 
known. 

(2)  What  is  known  is  that  pharmacologically,  a  major  active 
ingredient,  THC.  and  its  metabolites,  which  probably  have  continu- 
ing activity,  persist  in  the  body  for  long  periods  of  time,  and  likely 
have  continuing  psychological  and  physical  effects. 

(3)  The  most  commonly  used  derivatives  of  cannabis,  marihuana 
and  hashish,  show  varying  potency,  deterioration  with  time,  and 
variable  effects  on  humans. 

(4)  Probably  because  of  the  long  duration  of  active  cannabis 
ingredients  in  the  body,  regular  users,  that  is,  once  or  twice  weekly, 
show  clinical  evidence  of  continuing  low-grade  intoxication,  charac- 


202 

terized  by  memory  impairment,  mood  swings,  sleep  disturbances,  and 
generally  lessened  functioning.  They  also  show  a  variety  of  physical 
disorders.  Both  the  psychological  and  physical  symptoms  usually, 
though  not  always,  begin  to  clear  up  a  week  or  two  after  discontinua- 
tion of  cannabis  use,  suggesting  that  a  long-acting  biochemical  proc- 
ess is  involved.  This  very  relief  of  symptoms  offers  presumptive 
evidence  for  the  "clinical"  impression  that  cannabis  is  a  causative 
factor  in  their  production  and  maintenance. 

(5)  There  is  evidence  that  tolerance  and  increased  dosage  need  is 
occurring  with  regular  cannabis  users.  This  is  indicated  by  a  switch 
from  the  use  of  marihuana  to  hashish,  which  is  about  8  to  10  times 
more  potent,  and  by  the  huge  doses  of  hashish  used,  for  example,  by 
some  American  G.L's  in  Germany. 

(6)  Animal  experiments  have  shown  that  active  cannabis  prod- 
ucts cross  the  placental  barrier  and  can  be  passed  in  breast  milk. 
There  are  also  animal  reports  of  fetal  abnormalities  and,  more 
recently,  there  are  reports  of  chromosome  damage  in  human  light 
and  heavy  users. 

(7)  In  keeping  with  reports  that  marihuana  contains  about  50 
percent  more  tar  and  nicotine  than  heavy  tar  cigarettes,  there  are 
reports  of  cancerous  changes  in  animals  and  precancerous  changes 
in  the  lungs  of  young  human  users. 

(8)  There  are  reports  of  changes  in  nucleic  acid  synthesis  in 
animal  brains,  which  are  thought  to  have  some  bearing  on  the 
clinical  observation  of  memory  impairment  in  humans,  and  there  is 
also  a  report  of  cerebral  atrophy  in  heavy  human  users. 

(9)  Finally,  there  is  the  recent  report  from  Dr.  G.  G.  Nahas,  of 
Columbia  University,  of  interference  with  human  immune  response 
mechanisms  by  cannabis,  much  in  the  same  way  that  DDT  carries 
this  danger. 

The  physician,  presented  with  the  above  list,  for  which  detailed 
references  are  available  in  the  attached  documents,  must  conclude 
cannabis  constitutes  a  significant  hazard  to  the  health  of  the  indi- 
vidual. It  is  my  contention  that  there  really  never  has  been,  and 
there  is  not  now,  any  significant  body  of  medical  opinion  in  favor 
of  the  utilization  of  cannabis.  Like  every  other  group,  the  medical 
profession  has  been  confused  about  the  philosophical  and  humani- 
tarian aspects  of  drug  use,  and  some  individual  physicians  have  ex- 
pressed their  idiosyncratic  opinions  as  philosophers,  lawyers  and 
politicians  on  both  sides  of  the  drug  debate. 

I  myself  have  indulged  in  the  same  process  at  times  in  the  past, 
but  have  found  that  when  I  make  philosophical,  legal  or  political 
pronouncements  about  cannabis,  these  only  detract  from  what  I  have 
to  say  as  a  physician  and  psychiatrist.  Such  pronouncements  seem 
only  to  allow  some  individuals  to  categorize  me  personally  as  being 
with  them  or  against  them  and  in  either  case  they  turn  out  and 
continue  comfortably  in  their  own  convictions.  By  exercising  my 
democratic  right  to  keep  mv  vote  secret,  it  is  my  impression  that 
this  encourages  people  to  take  a  closer  look  at  the  evidence  rather 
than  judge  the  person. 

However,  I  consider  it  important  to  state  clearly  my  views  on  the 


203 

medical  aspect  of  the  marihuana  debate.  It  is  my  clear  opinion, 
based  on  the  material  presented  to  the  subcommittee,  that  the  use 
of  cannabis  should  be  discouraged  on  the  grounds  of  individual  and 
public  health  concerns.  This  is  an  opinion  which  is  shared  by  the 
governments  of  many  countries  which  have  signed  the  Single  Con- 
vention of  the  United  Nations,  by  the  recent  British,  American,  and 
Canadian  national  commissions,  and  by  the  Canadian  Medical 
Association. 

Given  that  goal,  which  seems  to  be  always  still  standing  there 
when  the  marihuana  smoke  blows  away,  it  is  up  to  the  legislators  in 
different  countries  to  decide  what  part  their  laws  should  play  in 
achieving  it. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Counsel  has  some  questions. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much  for  your  presentation,  Dr. 
Schwarz.  Do  you  find  the  cannabis  problem  increasing  in  Canada, 
the  way  it  is  here? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  Well,  we  have  the  feeling  that  it  may  be  beginning 
to  stabilize  a  bit  in  Canada;  but  it  certainly  has  been  increasing  very 
rapidly  up  until  quite  recently.  It's  very  difficult  to  say.  Certainly 
the  number  of  convictions  for  trafficking  has  gone  up  dramatically 
year  by  year  for  the  past  4  or  5  years. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  assume  you  follow  the  situation  in  the  United 
States  closely  because  of  your  general  interest  in  the  problem  in 
Canada? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  From  what  you  know  of  the  situation  here,  and 
from  your  personal  experience  in  Canada,  do  you  feel  that  the 
Canadian  situation  is  roughly  comparable  to  ours,  or  are  there  sig- 
nificant differences? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  No,  I  don't  think  there  are  any  major  differences; 
I  think  they  are  quite  comparable. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  would  point  out  in  response  to  your  first  answer, 
Dr.  Schwarz,  people  here  are  saying  it  is  tapering  off,  or  receding 
a  little  bit,  but  there  is  contrary  evidence,  quite  contrary ;  the  amount 
being  consumed  goes  up,  and  up,  and  up. 

Dr.  Schwarz.  Yes,  I  think  we  are  having  the  same  difficulty  in 
trying  to  read  the  month-to-month  situation  in  Canada. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  feel  the  press  in  Canada  overstates  or  ac- 
curately describes  the  dimension  of  the  problem? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  I  think  it  still  has  to  be  called  an  epidemic  in  terms 
of  the  rapidity  of  the  spread  in  the  use  of  cannabis  over  the  past 
several  years. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  the  total  number  of  people  involved  ? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  I  think  so. 

Mr.  Martin.  Are  cannabis  users  generally  honest ;  have  you  found 
them  generally  honest  in  their  interviews,  informing  you  of  the  in- 
tensity and  duration  of  their  habit,  and  any  symptoms  they  may 
have  noticed ;  or  do  vou  have  any  problems  getting  the  truth  out  of 
them? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  I  think  they  are  honest,  although  I  think  we  prob- 
ablv  have  some  difficultv  getting  the  facts  out  of  them ;  I  think  that 


204 

is  partly  because  of  some  effect  of  cannabis,  it  being  a  long-acting 
substance,  its  duration  in  the  body  is  continuing  and  active. 

The  problem  is  not  so  much  their  honesty;  the  problem  is  their 
difficulty  in  remembering.  I  know  in  my  interview  technique,  which 
is  a  fairly  fine  instrument  in  doing  the  investigation  of  cannabis 
users — I  could  give  you  a  brief  excerpt.  I  usually  ask  them  how  long 
they  have  been  using  cannabis :  how  often  they  use  it.  Most  of  them 
answer  that  question  with,  "Oh,  I  only  use  it  on  social  occasions."  I 
then  say,  "Well,  when  were  the  last  three  occasions  you  used  it?"  The 
answer  is  usually  something  like,  "Oh,  last  Saturday  night,  last 
Friday  night,  and  sometime  earlier  in  the  week,  but  I  can't  quite 
remember." 

As  we  go  through  the  process  I  usually  say  to  the  individual,  "Is 
the  use  of  cannabis  affecting  you  in  any  way  adversely,"  and  the 
answer  always  is,  "No,  everybody  knows  cannabis  doesn't  do  any- 
thing to  you."  So,  I  then  say,  "Well,  how  has  your  memory  been 
lately,"  and  the  most  common  answer  is  something  like,  "Well,  that's 
a  funny  thing,  Doc,  it's  not  as  good  as  it  used  to  be."  And  I  say, 
"How  has  your  mood  been  lately " 

Mr.  Martin.  Your  what? 

Dr.  Schwarz  [continuing].  "Your  mood,"  and  the  answer,  "The 
funny  thing  is,  my  girlfriend  tells  me  I'm  more  irritable."  "How 
has  your  sleep  pattern  been  lately?"  "Well,  I  have  difficulty  going 
to  sleep  at  night,  and  I  sleep  more  during  the  day." 

A  number  of  individuals  also  describe  a  continuous  feeling  of 
being  "spaced  out"  for  1  day  or  2  days  after  the  smoking  of  mari- 
huana. And  this  again,  I  think,  is  related  to  the  duration  of  the  con- 
tinuing intoxicant  in  the  body. 

Usually  by  this  kind  of  a  process  we  get  an  individual  to  agree 
that  cannabis  may  be  a  causative  factor  in  this;  and  if  we  get  him 
to  that  point,  I  usually  suggest  to  him  that  he  discontinue  the  mari- 
huana for  a  couple  of  weeks  on  a  trial  basis.  Quite  often  they  come 
back  in  and  say,  "You  know,  I'm  thinking  a  lot  more  clearly,  I 
didn't  realize  I  was  in  that  fog  before.  I'm  picking  up  old  interests, 
getting  in  touch  with  old  friends  I  haven't  seen  for  quite  some  time." 
And  that  process  of  improvement  can  continue  to  occur  if  the  cannabis 
user  avoids  it. 

Mr.  Martin.  There  are  certain  symptoms  you  believe  may  be 
caused  by  certain  drugs  but  are  not  sure  they  may  be  caused  by  this 
drug.  You  remove  this  drug,  the  symptoms  disappear.  This  would 
be  satisfactory  proof  in  the  eyes  of  most  doctors,  would  it  not  ? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  Oh,  I  don't  think  there  is  any  doubt  that  there  are 
clinical  findings,  that  is,  adequate  justification,  for  advising  people 
not  to  smoke  cannabis. 

Mr.  Martin.  You,  from  your  own  experience,  Dr.  Schwarz,  feel 
that  the  amotivational  syndrome  referred  to  by  psychiatrists  that 
testified  previously  is  a  clinical  fact,  a  demonstrable  clinical  fact;  or 
is  it  just  a  hypothesis  which  has  yet  to  be  demonstrated  ? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  No,  I  think  it  is  a  clinically  acceptable  diagnosis; 
not  necessarily  a  personality  disorder  because  the  causation  of  it  is 
still  unknown,  but  it  is  fairly  clear  that  a  number  of  regular  users 
of  cannabis  are  showing  a  deterioration  of  functions.  Some  people 


205 

interpret  it  as  a  change  of  personality,  while  I  personally  tend  to 
term  it  more  the  persistence  of  a  long-acting  substance  in  the  body. 
But,  there  is  no  doubt  there  is  a  significant  change  in  regular  users 
of  cannabis. 
Mr.  Martin.  And  this  is  a  very  frequent  syndrome  of  drug  users? 
Dr.  Schwarz.  I  think  I  could  elicit  symptomatology  in  any 
chronic  user. 

Mr.  Martin.  In  your  statement  you  made  the  point  you  would 
rather  not  express  your  opinion  concerning  legalizing  marihuana 
because  you  feel  such  a  pronouncement  might  detract  from  what 
you  had  to  tell  your  patients  as  a  physician  and  psychiatrist. 

I  respect  your  position  on  that  point,  Dr.  Schwarz,  but  I  would 
like  to  pose  an  alternative  question  on  the  psychological  plane.  If 
the  Government  tells  the  young  people  on  the  one  hand  that  mari- 
huana is  a  very  damaging  drug;  and  yet  on  the  other  hand  removes 
all  penalties,  even  a  simple  civil  fine  for  the  possession  and  use  of 
marihuana,  might  that  not  tend  to  confuse  the  young  people  that  you 
are  trying  to  reach  ? 

Dr/ Schwarz.  Yes,  I  think  it's  obviously  a  double  message.  You 
are  saying  on  the  one  hand,  we  don't  want  you  to  use  this,  but  on 
the  other  hand,  you  can  have  it  in  your  possession.  I  think  that  has 
certainly  caused  some  confusion  among  people  in  Canada  because 
this  sort  of  neutralizing  statement  did  come  out,  for  example,  in  the 
Le  Dain  Commission,  which  presented  a  massive  volume  of  material 
on  cannabis  which  was  totally  ignored,  or  largely  ignored,  by  the 
media  because  the  Le  Dain  Commission  came  out  with  legal,  or  philo- 
sophical, comments  which  affected  the  headlines. 

So,  I  think  it's  certainly  confusing  to  people  to  be  told  we  don't 
want  you  to  use  it  but  it's  ok  to  have  it  in  your  possession. 
Mr.  Martin.  Or  it's  not  so  bad  that  we  have  to  impose  a  penalty. 
Dr.  Schwarz.  Right. 

Mr.  Martin.   You  referred  to  a  resolution  of  the  1972  general 
meeting  of  the  Canadian  Medical  Association,  recommending  doctors 
to  advise  their  patients  of  the  dangers  of  marihuana. 
Dr.  Schwarz.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  This  was  passed  by  a  substantial  margin? 
Dr.  Schwarz.  There  were  220  delegates  at  the  annual  meeting  of 
the  Canadian  Medical  Association  from  all  over  Canada,  represent- 
ing all  physicians  in  Canada ;  out  of  the  220,  only  two  people  voted 
against  the  resolution  advising  the  Canadian  public  against  the  use 
of  cannabis. 

Mr.  Martin.  That's  a  pretty  good  accomplishment.  You  must  have 
done  a  pretty  good  job  of  preparatory  educational  work. 

Dr.  Schwarz.  Well,  we  had  not  only  educational  but  study  work. 
We  had  a  committee  in  British  Columbia  for  4  years  looking  at 
cannabis,  a  committee  of  seven  physicians,  all  of  them  with  a  good 
deal  of  experience  in  the  drug  field.  We  were  able  to  present  a  report 
to  the  British  Columbia  Medical  Association  that  was  approved 
unanimously,  and  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Canadian  Medical 
Association  it  was  passed  by  an  overwhelming  vote. 
I  think  not  only  was  the  material  we  prepared,  the  background, 


33-371    O  -  74  -  15 


206 

important  in  this,  but  I  think  it  became  obvious  as  the  discussion 
went  on  in  the  meeting  that  many  physicians  had  seen  this  kind  of 
thing  clinically  in  their  offices  anyway,  and  that  they  had  seen  some- 
thing like  this  happening.  We  just  happened  to  be  able  to  put  it  all 
together  at  that  time  in  clinical  diagnostic  terms  much  better  than 
had  been  done  before. 

Mr.  Martin.  Talking  about  education,  Dr.  Schwarz,  do  you  believe 
the  young  people  that  use  marihuana  have  a  completely  closed  mind? 

Dr.  Schwarz.  No,  I  don't.  One  of  the  reasons  why  we  have  to  get 
this  kind  of  information  across  to  the  public  through  the  media,  it 
is  only  when  you  sit  down  with  the  regular  cannabis  user  and  start 
questioning  him  that  he  becomes  aware  of,  say,  the  sleep  pattern, 
his  general  health ;  and  a  fairly  significant  number  respond  by  agree- 
ing, yes,  maybe  there  is  a  cause-and-effect  relationship  here;  maybe 
I  should  cut  down  on  cannabis  use,  or  give  it  up  completely  for  a 
while  and  see  if  things  clear.  Once  you  get  to  that  point,  again,  you 
are  much  nearer  abstention  from  the  drug. 

Mr.  Martin.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  ends  my  questions.  I  would  like 
to  ask,  if  the  chairman  approves,  that  the  exhibits  and  papers  which 
Dr.  Schwarz  has  offered  for  the  record  be  incorporated  in  the 
appendix. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  have  one  more  suggestion  I  would  like  to  make  for 
the  approval  of  the  chairman.  Dr.  Axelrod's  testimony  should  have 
been  given  last  Thursday  when  we  had  our  panel  of  medical  scien- 
tists. Unfortunately  Dr.  Axelrod  was  not  present  on  that  day.  1 
would  like  to  propose  that  his  testimony  be  printed  together  with 
that  of  the  medical  scientists  who  testified  last  Thursday. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

I  wish  to  thank  you,  Dr.  Schwarz,  for  your  appearance  here  and 
your  testimony. 

Our  next  witness  will  be  Prof.  Hardin  B.  Jones.  Professor  Jones, 
will  you  please  identify  yourself  for  the  record  and  tell  us  some  of 
your  qualifications. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HARDIN  B.  JONES,  PH.  D.,  PROFESSOR  OF  MEDICAL 
PHYSICS,  PROFESSOR  OF  PHYSIOLOGY,  ASSISTANT  DIRECTOR, 
DONNER  LABORATORY,  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 

Professor  Jones.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  Hardin  B.  Jones.  I  am 
professor  of  physiology,  professor  of  medical  physics,  and  assistant 
director  of  the  Donner  Laboratory  of  Medical  Physics  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  California,  Berkeley.  I  have  been  on  the  staff  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  California,  Berkeley,  since  1938.  I  received  my  Ph.  D.  in 
physiology  in  1944  and  in  the  same  year  was  appointed  to  the 
faculty.  I  have  published  approximately  100  significant  papers  on 
such  topics  as:  origins  of  cancer,  longevity,  aging,  cardiovascular 
disease,  effects  of  radiation,  effects  of  smoking  and  other  environ- 
mental hazards,  physical  fitness,  nutrition,  regional  blood  flow,  in- 
fectious disease,  and  treatment  of  cancer,  and  I  have  recentlv  concen- 
trated my  professional  attention  on  the  matter  of  drug  abuse.  My 


207 

fields  of  scientific  specialty  include  physiology,  biochemistry,  demog- 
raphy, statistics,  biophysics,  and  epidemiology,  and  I  have  used  many 
of  these  resources  in  my  study  of  the  effects  of  drugs  and  the  origin 
of  the  drug  movement.  I  have  recently  written  a  book,  "Coleridge, 
on  Coleridge  and  Opium,"  and,  with  my  wife,  another  book,  "Sen- 
sual Drugs:  Dehabilitation  and  Rehabilitation  of  the  Mind."  I 
tender,  as  part  of  my  testimony,  some  of  my  shorter  articles  and 
reports  on  the  effects"  of  cannabis.*  One  of  these  is  a  report  to  the 
Army  stemming  from  studies  and  educational  demonstrations  I  con- 
ducted through  the  arrangements  of  Maj.  Gen.  John  K.  Singlaub, 
then  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  of  Defense,  Drug  and  Alcohol 
Abuse,  a  position  now  held  by  Maj.  Gen.  Frank  B.  Clay.  I  made 
three  extensive  studies  of  the  drug  problem  in  Southeast  Asia;  the 
last  was  with  Mrs.  Jones  (we  collaborate)  and  included  studies  of  our 
soldiers  in  Germany.  General  Abrams,  then  commanding  our  forces 
in  Southeast  Asia,  awarded  me  a  citation  for  distinguished  civilian 
service  in  recognition  of  this  work. 

It  is  pertinent  to  my  testimony  that  I  have  personally  interviewed 
more  than  1,600  drug  users,  most  of  whom  used  cannabis,  and  that 
I  give  a  unique  course,  "Drug  Use  and  Abuse."  The  course  has  a  cur- 
rent enrollment  of  390  students.  I  have  given  it  10  times  in  5  years, 
and  it  provides  a  clear  example  of  how  information,  equivalent  to 
that  of  these  hearings,  can  stop  drug  abuse. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Dr.  Jones,  I  have  a  few  more  questions  about 
your  qualifications  before  you  testify  here  today.  I  believe  it  is  not 
an  overstatement  that  you  have  somewhat  of  a  national  reputation 
for  careful  scientific  research. 

Professor  Jones.  I  believe  that  is  true,  sir. 

Senator  Thurmond.  It  was  because  of  this  reputation  that  you 
were  asked  to  serve  as  a  consultant  on  the  Atomic  Energy  Commis- 
sion on  the  effects  of  radiation  and  protection  against  radiation;  is 
that  true  ? 

Professor  Jones.  I  did  most  of  the  basic  work  that  led  to  the  new 
standard  for  radiation  protection,  and  guidance  to  estimate  radiation 
exposure  hazards  based  on  proportionality  rather  than  on  a  thresh- 
old. 

Senator  Thurmond.  And  it  was  your  research  that  established  the 
basis  for  the  radiation  safety  standards  currently  in  use. 

Professor  Jones.  I  believe  that  my  research  and  the  evidence  sub- 
mitted played  a  very  large  part  in  that. 

Senator  Thurmond.  These  standards  are  generally  accepted  by  the 
scientific  community,  are  they  not? 

Professor  Jones.  Yes,  they  are. 

Senator  Thurmond.  It  Was  also  your  reputation  as  a  careful 
scientist  that  led  you  to  the  appointment  as  consultant  on  the  Army 
Drug  Abuse,  did  it  not? 

Professor  Jones.  Yes,  it  was. 

Senator  Thurmond.  You  may  proceed  now  with  your  statement, 
Dr.  Jones. 


*A  list  of  the  articles  referred  to  mav  be  found  at  the  end  of  Professor  Jones  testimony, 
p.   250.   The  articles  are  retained  in  the  files  of  the  subcommittee. 


208 

Professor  Jones.  Senator  Thurmond,  I  preface  my  prepared  re- 
marks to  thank  you  and  your  colleagues  of  the  Internal  Security  Sub- 
committee for  these  hearings.  They  comprise  the  most  extensive  and 
comprehensive  scientific  meetings  yet  held  on  cannabis  abuse.  A 
number  of  us  have  made  this  observation.  We  also  want  to  state 
clearly  that  the  subject  is  urgent  and  needs  the  most  serious  atten- 
tion. The  awful  fact  is  that  we  are  caught  up  in  the  most  destructive 
epidemic  of  cannabis  abuse  the  world  has  yet  known.  But  the  magni- 
tude of  the  disaster  has  not  been  recognized  and  corrective  remedies 
have  not  been  applied.  These  hearings  may  be  the  first  step  toward 
corrective  action. 

Mr.  Martin.  Before  you  go  further,  Professor  Jones,  I  note  from 
your  qualifications  that  you  are  also  experienced  as  a  medical  stat- 
istician— perhaps  you  can  throw  some  light  on  a  matter  that  has 
been  troubling  some  of  us  on  the  subcommittee.  On  the  one  hand 
there  are  official  surveys  that  tell  us  that  the  cannabis  epidemic  has 
either  leveled  off,  or  perhaps  tapered  off ;  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  a 
massive  annual  increase  in  marihuana  and  hashish  seizures,  mari- 
huana has  gone  upward  in  a  5-year  period  tenfold  to  780,000  pounds; 
in  the  case  of  hashish  25-fold  over  5  years  to  54,000  pounds — by  Fed- 
eral agents  only.  And  cannabis  arrests  over  the  same  period  of  time 
have  increased  comparably.  All  of  this  suggests  that  there  has  in 
fact  been  a  continuing  increase  in  cannabis  abuse,  rather  than  a 
tapering  off.  How  do  you  explain  such  a  conflict? 

Professor  Jones.  Well,  it  depends,  Mr.  Martin,  on  what  informa- 
tion one  uses.  In  different  parts  of  the  country  one  gets  different 
examples  of  the  extent  of  drug  use,  or  drug  abuse.  In  the  beginning 
of  the  epidemic  the  larger  cities  and  college  campuses  particularly 
were  the  beginning  of  the  infection  that  led  to  the  epidemic;  and 
these  centers  for  the  most  part  now  have  reached  saturation  as  far 
as  the  numbers  or  fractions  that  may  be  involved. 

But,  our  rural  areas,  that  is  a  different  thing.  In  our  rural  areas 
the  epidemic  is  just  now  reaching  public  crisis  proportions.  And  in 
most  rural  areas  in  the  United  States,  areas  that  we  formerly 
thought  were  immune,  if  there  is  such  a  thing,  the  problem  is  about 
as  bad  as  it  is  currently  in  Berkeley. 

But  I,  myself,  believe  from  all  the  surveys  I  have  been  able  to 
supervise  and  personally  conduct  on  the  university  campus — and  the 
large  number  personally  available  to  me  from  my  own  samples  at 
Berkeley  amounts  to  approximately  a  thousand  students  a  year,  a 
good  size  sample — that  even  today  at  Berkeley,  although  drug  use 
on  the  campus  has  remained  at  a  fixed  percentage,  55  percent  of  the 
students  in  the  last  2  years 

Mr.  Martin.  55  percent  use  what? 

Professor  Jones.  Use  cannabis,  and  some  of  them  of  course  use 
other  drugs  as  well. 

Mr.  Martin.  Just  experimental,  or  on  a  regular  basis? 

Professor  Jones.  They  use  it  on  a  regular  basis  so  that  even  though 
of  the  average  freshmen  coming  to  the  university,  only  about  one  in 
six  or  one  in  eight  uses  cannabis  when  they  come  in,  each  successive 
year  they  stay  the  fraction  that  uses  cannabis  or  other  drugs  in- 
creases, so  by  the  time  they  graduate,  considerably  better  than  90 
percent  are  experienced  cannabis  users. 


209 

So,  even  in  the  university  atmosphere,  where  the  sampling  of 
drugs  should  show  a  steady  volume,  there  is  still  an  increase  in  the 
students'  use  of  drugs  as  they  pass  through  the  university.  This 
cetainly  portends,  taking  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  that  the  young- 
est cohort  of  the  youngsters  that  are  approaching  adult  age  is  still 
being  inducted  into  the  drug  problem.  So,  the  problem  is  not  going 
away.  I  doubt  if  it  is  truly  even  crested  as  yet,  although  I  would  like  to 
think  that  in  the  future  we  may  see  such  evidence. 

Mr.  Martin.  One  further  question,  some  of  the  people  with  whom 
we  discussed  the  matter  tells  us  that  the  statistics  for  seizures  or  con- 
victions of  marihuana  and  hashish,  and  the  statistics  for  arrests,  year 
by  year,  of  cannabis  offenders,  are  no  reliable  indications  of  the 
amount  of  cannabis  actually  being  consumed.  Do  you  feel  that  these 
statistics  are  in  fact  worthless  as  indicators  of  a  trend;  or  do  you 
think  that  they  have  serious  validity? 

Professor  Jones.  Mr.  Martin,  I  believe  the  numbers  have  very 
significant  validity.  They  are  not  the  only  answer,  and  I  think  it  is 
always  important  to  go  by  as  many  sources  of  information  and 
points  of  view  as  are  available.  But,  in  1968  I  wrote  a  very  serious 
analysis  of  the  trend  in  the  drug  problem,  and  I  used  arrests  of  drug 
users  and  also  seizures  of  drugs  as  the  basic  quantitative  informa- 
tion on  which  to  make  my  projection. 

My  projection  has  been  accurate  within  10  percent  in  estimating 
the  drug  traffic  today;  and  in  fact  drug  traffic  today  has  increased 
nearly  a  factor  of  10  above  the  level  of  that  time.  So,  I  think  the 
seizures  are  very  important  data.  We  have  always  been  able  to  use 
seizures  as  some  real  indication  of  traffic.  In  fact,  in  a  country  as 
big  as  this,  with  200  million  people  involved  and  the  many  tons 
of  illicit  drugs  being  seized  per  year,  the  statistical  stability  of  these 
numbers  is  very  great  indeed,  and  you  can  tell  that  from  the  re- 
markable smoothness  of  the  trend  and  the  uniform  rate  of  increase 
over  the  past  decade. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you.  Will  you  proceed  with  your  statement, 
Professor  Jones.  And,  I  want  to  point  out  for  the  information  of  the 
two  remaining  witnesses,  you  and  Mr.  Keith  Cowan,  that  we  are 
going  to  be  short  of  time  this  afternoon  because  of  the  schedule  of 
rollcall  votes  that  are  scheduled  for  after  4  o'clock.  So,  I  would  ask 
you  to  edit  your  text  as  you  read  it,  judiciously,  with  a  view  to  ab- 
breviating your  reading  time  as  much  as  possible. 

Professor  Jones.  Could  the  statement  be  inserted? 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection  the  entire  text  will  be  in- 
serted in  the  record,  and  you  can  comment  on  the  main  issues  if  you 
wish. 

Professor  Jones.  Very  well,  I  will  only  read  those  portions  that  I 
believe  important  for  us  to  consider  in  detail  at  this  time ;  and  I  will 
paraphrase  and  condense  the  rest,  and  try  not  to  go  over  20  minutes. 

I  was  talking  about  the  magnitude  of  the  current  disaster. 

I  do  want  to  say  that,  typical  of  disasters,  the  reason  they  become 
disasters  is  that  the  remedies  are  a  part  of  the  problem  and  make  the 
disaster  worse  than  otherwise  it  would  be.  I  feel  that  most  of  the 
public  effort  that  we  have  applied  to  the  drug  problem,  in  the  at- 
tempt to  convince  ourselves  that  a  drug  can  be  kept  at  a  moderate 


210 

level,  specifically  in  regard  to  the  cannabis  family  of  drugs,  led  us 
to  expend  most  of  our  energy  debating  questions  as  to  whether  drugs 
in  general,  or  cannabis  in  particular,  might  be  legalized  or  de- 
criminalized; all  of  this  has  not  only  dissipated  our  energies,  but 
also  has  kept  us  from  directing  our  attention  to  the  central  problem. 

As  an  expert  in  human  radiation  effects,  I  point  out  that  the 
chromosome  damage  found  by  Professor  Stenchever,  even  in  those 
who  use  cannabis  moderately,  is  roughly  the  same  type  and  degree 
of  damage  as  in  persons  surviving  atom  bombing  with  a  heavy  level 
of  radiation  exposure — approximately  150  roentgens.  The  implica- 
tions are  the  same. 

Dr.  Heath  has  presented  direct  observations  in  humans  that  use 
of  cannabis  results  in  persistent  poisoning  of  the  deep  centers  of  the 
brain  necessary  for  the  awareness  of  pleasure.  This  fits  the  observations 
by  many  of  us  that  marihuana  users  have  severe  sensory  deprivation, 
and  that  this  symptom  of  marihuana  intoxication  is  the  slowest  and 
least  likely  to  recover.  Dr.  Heath  has,  in  a  sense,  shown  by  direct 
measurement  that  cannabis  poisons  the  very  part  of  the  brain  that 
allows  full  awareness  of  being  alive. 

There  is  perhaps  no  greater  hell,  even  with  pain,  than  not  to  be 
able  to  feel  alive.  Those  who  are  not  able  to  feel  alive  will  even 
seek  pain  to  get  relief  from  their  remorse.  And  that  is  the  hell  that 
is  projected  for  those  who  use  cannabis. 

I  must  say  that,  with  regard  to  my  1,600  cannabis  users,  it  is  rare 
to  find  someone  that  does  not  show  symptoms  of  this  very  tragic 
change.  Hopefully  those  symptoms  will  be  reversible. 

Now,  in  presenting  my  argument,  let  me  also  ask,  for  the  record, 
that  two  highly  integrated  papers  of  mine  will  be  carried  in  the 
record  along  with  this  testimony  because  they  have  to  do  with  a 
view  of  cannabis  that  is  not  available  elsewhere;  and  it's  highly 
integrated  and  coordinated  with  all  the  testimony  that  occurs.  These 
papers,  however,  are  not  recent,  they  were  prepared  over  the  last  2 
years. 

Mr.  Martin.  May  I  suggest  that  this  material  be  accepted  for  the 
files  of  the  subcommittee,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Professor  Jones.  Also,  for  the  educative  instruction  of  what  we 
have  brought  together  here,  I  have  three  small  letters  to  the  public, 
some  of  which  have  been  widely  distributed  already,  but  they  ought 
to  be  a  part  of  the  record,  too,  because  they  will  easily  allow  anyone 
reading  the  text  to  realize  the  significance  of  the  findings. 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  have  any  other  documents  you  wish  to  offer 
at  this  time? 

Professor  Jones.  No,  I  will  proceed  now  to  look  at  the  exhibits. 

Mr.  Martin.  May  the  letters  be  incorporated  as  appendices? 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Professor  Jones.  The  findings  of  Stenchever  and  Heath  put  the 
effects  of  cannabis  in  a  very  serious  category.  Not  only  do  we  hope 
that  there  will  be  appropriate  action  by  Congress  and  the  executive 
branch  of  the  Government  but  we  also  hope  for  an  end  to  foolish 
statements  encouraging  the  use  of  marihuana. 

In  my  presentation  this  afternoon,  I  plan  to  deal  with  the  sources 


211 

of  the  current  marihuana-hashish  epidemic,  because  only  when  we 
have  identified  the  sources  will  we  be  able  to  attack  and  push  back 
the  epidemic.  A  classic  source  is  the  influence  of  the  literary-intel- 
lectual tradition  involving  some  much  admired  names  in  English  and 
French  literature.  But  this  by  itself  would  not  have  been  enough 
to  launch  the  epidemic.  Nor  did  the  epidemic  arise  spontaneously.  I 
believe  that  the  rapidity  with  which  the  use  of  marihuana  has  spread 
across  our  Nation  in  less  than  10  years  is  the  result  of  a  massive 
and  sustained  promarihuana  propaganda  campaign,  involving  a 
small  but  influential  number  of  academic  propagandists,  the  media, 
the  entertainment  industry,  and  the  new  left. 

In  my  presentation,  I  plan  to  deal  separately  with  each  of  these 
sources  of  promarihuana  propaganda. 

Origins  of  the  Drug  Movement 

involvement  of  literary  intellectuals  with  drugs 

Some  writers  of  the  late  18th  and  early  19th  century  began  to 
make  use  of  mind-altering  drugs  when  the  large-scale  importation  of 
opium  to  the  Western  countries  by  the  East  India  Co.,  beginning 
in  1776,  made  opium  and  morphine  readily  available.  The  effects  of 
these  drugs  fitted  well  with  the  mood  of  the  Komantic  Movement. 
Under  the  influence  of  opiates,  writers  fantasized  and  were  attact- 
ively  mystic  and  incomprehensible.  They  had  much  to  do  with  the 
dreamy*  impracticality  and  the  sympathy-generating  anguish  of  the 
Romantic  Movement.  One  cause  of  the  dreaminess  was  the  non- 
specific euphoria  induced  by  opium.  The  anguish,  depression,  and 
misery  were  derived  from  the  special  problems  of  the  opium-eater: 
addiction,  tolerance,  withdrawal  illness,  sensory  deprivation,  and 
depression.  Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge  and  Thomas  de  Quincey  were 
the  first  prominent  writers  in  this  movement;  other  prominent 
intellectuals,  over  the  intervening  century,  were  Charles  Baudelaire, 
Edgar  Allen  Poe,  and,  in  recent  times,  Aldous  Huxley.  Huxley 
wrote  an  essay,  "Heaven  and  Hell,"  revealing  his  drug-induced 
manic  depressive  disease.  He  also  wrote,  in  1954,  the  essay  that  be- 
came the  touchstone  of  the  current  drug  movement :  "Doors  of  Per- 
ception." Here  he  witnessed  to  the  mental  wonders  of  "mind  ex- 
pansion" through  use  of  the  hallucinogenic  drug,  peyote  or 
mescaline.  Millions  have  read  this  romantic  and  misleading  account 
of  mental  "trips"  on  a  drug.  That  hallucinations  do,  occur  and  are 
fascinating  is  not  incorrectly  reported;  what  is  in  error  is  the  as- 
sertion that  this  is  "mind  expansion"  or  in  any  way  an  enhancement 
of  the  powers  of  perception.  The  mind  simply  limps  along  with 
portions  of  the  brain  not  working.  Novel?  Yes,  for  normally  we  do 
not  deliberately  generate  sensory  confusion  and  impairment  of 
perception.  But  the  romantic  notion  of  "mind  expansion"  took  hold 
and  was  combined  with  supposedly  "scientific"  studies  in  the  same 
vein  by  Dr.  Timothy  Leary — then  assistant  professor  of  psychology 
at  Harvard  University.  Leary  used  and  studied  the  drug,  psilocybin, 
which  is  similar  to  mescaline  but  more  powerful.  The  still  more 
powerful  lysergic  acid  diethylamide,  LSD,  was  rediscovered   and 


212 

used  by  the  drug  romanticists  in  the  mid-1960's.  In  the  meantime, 
through  the  efforts  of  Herbert  Marcuse,  "Eros  and  Civilization," 
Timothy  Leary,  Allen  Ginsberg,  and  others,  a  political  movement 
based  on  the  use  of  drugs  was  conceived  and  launched. 

The  political  goals  of  some  of  the  drug  cult  leaders  can  be  per- 
ceived in  the  almost  incoherent  ramblings  of  Leary  in  his  1968 
book,  "High  Priest."  On  pages  111-128,  he  describes  a  group  drug 
session  using  the  "sacred  mushroom"  drug,  psilocybin,  that  took 
place  in  December  1960. 

There  were  the  detached  philosophers  *  *  *  who  knew  that  the  new  drugs 
were  reintroducing  the  platonic-gnostic  vision  *  *  *  here  was  Allen  Ginsberg, 
secretary-general  of  the  world's  poets,  beatniks,  anarchists,  socialists,  free  sex 
love  cultists  *  *  *.  He  was  lying  on  the  top  of  the  blanket.  His  glasses  were  off 
and  his  black  eyes,  pupils  completely  dilated — from  psilocybin — looked  up  at 
me  *  *  *.  A  little  later,  in  the  study.  In  front  of  the  desk  looking  like  medieval 
hermits  were  Allen  and  Peter  both  stark  naked. 

[Ginsberg's  words,  as  cited  by  Leary,  in  capitals.] 

I  WENT  IN  AMONG  THE  PSYCHOLOGISTS  IN  STUDY  AND  SAW  THEY 
TOO  WERE  WAITING  FOR  SOMETHING  VAST  TO  HAPPEN,  ONLY  IT 
REQUIRED  SOMEONE  AND  THE  MOMENT  TO  MAKE  IT  HAPPEN— AC- 
TION, REVOLUTION  *  *  *  Allen  says  he  is  the  Messiah  and  he's  calling 
Kerouac  to  start  a  peace  and  love  movement  *  *  *  I  also  hear  Paul  Goodman  and 
N.  Podhoretz  are  forming  some  kind  of  committee  for  intelligent  action  which 
has  as  program  various  things  such  as  sex  freedom  and  drug  freedom. 

♦  *  *  I  SAW  THE  BEST  MINDS  OF  MY  GENERATION  *  *  *  Allen  talked 
nearsighted  Marx-Trotsky-Paine  poetry  *  *  *  WHO  DISTRIBUTED  SUPER- 
COMMUNIST  PAMPHLETS  IN  UNION  SQUARE  WEEPING  AND  UN- 
DRESSING *  *  *.  Allen  Ginsberg  the  social-worker  politician  explaining  the 
sex-drug-freedom-ecstasy  movement  *  *  *  And  so  Allen  spun  out  the  cosmic 
campaign.  He  was  to  line  up  influentials  and  each  weekend  I  would  come  down 
to  New  York  and  we'd  run  mushroom — psilocybin — sessions. 

In  the  early  1960's,  I  was  occasionally  aware,  from  student  con- 
tacts, that  the  Telegraph  Avenue  area  of  Berkeley  was  experiment- 
ing with  LSD  and  free  sex — Leary  style.  But  prior  to  1965,  this 
must  have  been  confined  to  a  small  and  isolated  segment  of  the 
university  community. 

Chance  opportunity  to  launch  the  drug  movement  came  to 
Berkeley  in  January  1965.  The  Free  Speech  Movement  won  an  en- 
dorsement from  the  Berkeley  faculty  of  their  contention  that  free 
speech  includes  freedom  to  engage  in  illegal  advocacies  and  acts. 
This  sad  event  occurred  on  December  8,  1964.  When  the  campus 
reopened  in  January  1965,  the  first  such  illegal  act  was  open  ad- 
vocacy of  drug  use — in  particular,  marihuana  and  LSD.  Pro-mari- 
huana handouts  flooded  the  campus  for  months,  and  speakers  end- 
lessly sought  to  promote  these  drugs  in  the  "free  speech  area",  using 
university  public  address  equipment,  and  in  classrooms.  A  student, 
Charles  Artman — "Charlie  Brown" — who  was  much  involved  in  use 
of  LSD  and  marihuana,  became  the  initiator  of  the  Filthy  Speech 
Movement.  When  I  first  met  and  interviewed  him,  he  was  a  clean 
and  bright-appearing  young  man.  In  a  relatively  short  time,  he 
changed  to  an  aged,  sagging,  and  dull-witted  person.  As  for  the  few 
prominent  in  the  Free  Speech  Movement  who  have  remained  active 
and  vigorous,  it  appears  that  they  were  not  drug  users.  On  the  other 
hand,  there  were  multiple  tragedies  among  those  who  used  drugs, 
though  no  one  can  prove  a  causative  link  to  cannabis  and  LSD. 


213 

During  this  time,  we  had  a  son  and  a  daughter  on  campus.  Among 
their  circle  of  friends,  even  though  our  children  did  not  use  drugs 
and  the  majority  of  their  friends  did  not,  there  were  nevertheless 
some  who  were  seriously  affected  by  drug  abuse : 

1.  An  A  student  in  engineering  became  heavily  involved  with 
marihuana  and  LSD  and  failed  in  his  courses.  He  partially  recovered 
and  changed  his  major  to  sociology,  but  then  dropped  out  into  the 
Haight-Ashbury  drug  culture  and  is  reported  to  have  died.  When 
last  seen,  he  was  unrecognizable  physically  and  with  no  trace  of  his 
former  high  intelligence. 

2.  A  strong  B+  student  with  aptitude  in  literature  became  a 
"speed-freak" — heavy  user  of  amphetamines.  She  was  also  involved 
with  marihuana  and  other  drugs.  She  has  partially  recovered — 
enough  to  work  and  support  an  inactive,  pot-using  "husband" — but 
she  lost  her  way. 

3.  An  A  student  did  surprisingly  well  in  spite  of  his  use  of  can- 
nabis, a  few  LSD  trips,  and  heroin  addiction.  But  he  was  able  to 
sustain  himself  for  only  a  year.  Drug  use  then  became  his  entire 
life  pattern.  He  left  Berkeley,  so  I  do  not  know  what  has  happened 
to  him  since. 

4.  An  A  student,  son  of  a  professor,  became  a  multiple  drug  user 
and  a  dealer  in  drugs.  He  was  "busted"  early  in  his  drug-peddling 
career  and  gained  rehabilitation,  but  only  after  considerable  effort. 
He  is  reportedly  doing  well  and  free  of  drug  use. 

5.  An  athlete  who  sometimes  dated  our  daughter  had  an  athletic 
scholarship,  was  a  strong  student  academically,  and  was  recognized 
as  an  outstanding  person.  His  subsequent  involvement  with  cannabis 
and  LSD  produced  a  permanent  personality  change.  He  became 
homosexual  and  a  dangerous  manic  depressive.  Shortly  afterward, 
iij  an  LSD  flashback,  he  killed  a  relative.  He  is  now  institutionalized. 

6.  A  young  man,  the  son  of  schoolteachers,  very  able  mentally  and 
with  exceptionally  fine  home  training,  began  using  drugs  on  campus. 
One  day  he  went  home  while  "high"  on  amphetamines,  beat  his 
father  to  unconsciousness,  and  killed  his  mother  by  mashing  her 
head  with  a  flowerpot.  He  never  offered  any  explanation  for  his 
"madness." 

7.  A  young  man  who  was  both  an  outstanding  athlete  and  a  strong 
student  was  accepted  into  medical  school.  He  was  a  moderate  canna- 
bis user.  During  his  sophomore  year  in  medical  school,  he  died  of  an 
overdose  of  barbiturate  self -injected  intravenously. 

8.  An  additional  six  individuals  have  undergone  personality 
changes  due  to  cannabis  and  LSD,  to  a  degree  requiring  psychiatric 
care.  It  can  be  said  that,  while  these  six  have  "recovered",  they  have 
certainly  blunted  their  potential  and  cannot  make  up  for  the  loss  of 
time  in  the  most  formative  period  of  their  education  and  develop- 
ment. 

I  cite  the  above  cases  because  they  all  occurred  within  the  limited 
circle  of  friends  and  acquaintances  of  my  son  and  daughter.  The 
number  of  cases  is  high,  in  view  of  the  small  fraction  of  that  circle 
that  was  involved  with  drugs.  No  equivalent  tragedies  occurred 
among  the  acquaintances  of  another  daughter,  who  was  at  Berkeley 
in  1960-64,  or  of  our  son  who  is  there  now,  1970-74,  but  not  in  touch 


214 

with  the  drug-using  segments  of  the  campus.  From  questioning 
parents  on  this  subject,  as  I  often  do,  I  conclude  that  it  is  rare  today 
to  find  adults  without  some  close  relative — often  their  own  children — 
affected  by  drug  abuse;  dropping  out,  indolence,  lowering  of  goals, 
alienation,  and  mental  dullness  are  common.  Although  death  from 
overdose  of  drugs — heroin,  methadone,  and  barbiturates — has  be- 
come the  leading  cause  of  death  of  young  adults,  and  although  drug 
use  is  common,  the  vast  majority  of  those  severely  affected  remain 
out  of  sight,  supported  by  relatives,  friends,  or  state  welfare  agencies. 
Superficially,  there  are  few  signs  that  we  are  suffering  such  a  cata- 
strophic loss.  All  samplings  I  have  made  in  ghetto,  middle-class,  and 
upper-class  communities  show  extensive  harm  from  cannabis,  heroin, 
amphetamines,  LSD,  and  now  cocaine.  Yet  the  magnitude  of  the 
problem  remains  hidden.  Families  affected  bear  their  anguish  in 
silence,  and  the  agencies  that  evaluate  vital  statistics  have  collected 
little  information  on  this  problem  other  than  numbers  of  deaths 
from  overdose. 

Drug  abuse  patterns  of  each  type  of  drug  and  the  techniques  of 
taking  the  drug  spread  from  person  to  person.  Each  user  draws  in 
others.  This  is  the  explanation  of  the  fact  that  numbers  of  drug  users 
increase  multiplicatively  with  time.  Prior  to  1965,  signs  of  drug  use 
had  been  increasing  at  the  rate  of  approximately  6  percent  per  year. 
But  after  drug  use  was  openly  advocated,  as  at  Berkeley  from  Jan- 
uary 1965  on,  drug  use  of  each  type  increased  at  7  percent  per  month, 
resulting  in  an  annual  increase  20  times  as  great  as  before  1965. 
Young  people  became  more  easily  convinced  that  the  invitations  of- 
fered by  drug-using  friends  were  worth  accepting.  Whereas  prior  to 
1965  it  took  a  decade,  on  the  average,  for  each  user  to  convert  a 
friend,  after  1965  it  took  only  9  months.  The  greater  susceptibility  is, 
in  my  opinion,  the  result  of  widespread  advocacy  of  drug  use  by 
persons  in  influential  positions.  Professors — not  all,  but  a  few — were 
involved.  Magazines  did  their  part,  too,  by  romanticizing  the  use  of 
hallucinatory  drugs.  Life  ran  feature  stories  in  1965  of  the  expedi- 
tions to  Central  America  to  try  the  "sacred  mushroom",  psilocybin. 
For  the  first  time,  the  drug  abuse  disease  of  a  few  intellectuals  broke 
into  the  educational  system,  literally  without  opposition  and  with 
"distinguished"  support  for  the  "mind  expansion"  hypothesis. 

WHAT  ARE  THE  MOTIVES  OF  THOSE  WHO  ADVOCATE  DRUGS  ? 

I  have  had  discussions  with  many  drug-user  advocates.  Relying 
principally  on  personal  experience,  they  believe  that  cannabis  and 
whatever  else  they  use  is  harmless  because  they  perceive  no  diffi- 
culties. That  is  one  of  the  subtle  dangers  of  most  of  these  drugs: 
That  the  user  is  rendered  incapable  of  detecting  the  changes  in  him- 
self. 

Some  advocates  equate  drug  use  with  civil  rights  and  with  the  anti- 
war movement.  After  my  first  lectures  about  marihuana  in  1969,  in 
which  I  pointed  out  the  adverse  effects,  a  delegation  of  students 
called  at  my  office  to  complain  that  my  lectures  were  "against  their 
constitutional  rights." 

From  a  few  of  the  more  sophisticated  students  involved  in  the 


215 

effort  to  legalize  drugs,  I  have  learned  that  they  expect  to  start  a 
political  movement  of  the  magnitude  of  the  antiprohibition  move- 
ment of  the  depression  period.  An  important  book  in  this  vein  is  by 
John  Kaplan,  a  Stanford  law  professor :  "Marihuana — the  New  Pro- 
hibition." 

At  Berkeley,  where  these  events  began,  the  Free  Speech  Move- 
ment came  first,  followed  by  the  drug  movement,  followed  by  the 
Filthy  Speech — free  sex — Movement,  and  later  by  the  antiwar  move- 
ment. There  has  been  a  commingling  of  the  same  persons  in  these 
movements.  I  have  already  noted  the  involvement  of  the  FSM  lead- 
ers with  drugs. 

THE   DRUG   PROPAGANDISTS 

Dr.  Timothy  Leary :  I  knew  him  in  the  1950's  and,  in  my  opinion — 
reinforced  by  others  who  knew  him  in  Berkeley — he  has  signs  of 
mental  deterioration,  coincident  with  his  drug  use.  Typical  of  the 
persistent  delusions  of  heavy  drug  users  are  his  lapses  into  belief  in 
his  personal  divinity — note  the  title  of  one  of  his  books :  "The  High 
Priest."  He  talked  on  the  Berkeley  campus  frequently,  advocating 
that  students  "blow  their  minds"  on  drugs.  Another  Leary  phrase 
was :  "Tune  in,  turn  on,  and  drop  out."  By  chance,  I  was  one  of  the 
last  to  challenge  him  in  public  discussion  before  he  was  arrested.  We 
debated  in  San  Francisco  on  Friday,  November  7,  1969.  Leary  asked 
the  audience  of  some  500  high  school  journalism  students  to  use 
drugs  to  protest  the  war  in  Vietnam.  "Blow  your  minds."  I  replied 
that  many  young  people  had  already  taken  Dr.  Leary's  advice,  and 
this  had  led,  through  LSD  use,  to  the  death,  or  mental  or  physical 
maiming,  of  more  people  than  had  been  killed  or  maimed  in  the 
war  in  Vietnam  in  the  same  time  period.  Leary  exclaimed,  with  a 
waving  of  his  arms :  "I've  been  shot."  Then,  after  a  pause,  he  said : 
"You  are  wrong;  I  know  of  only  250  who  died  from  taking  LSD." 
I  replied:  "These  were  the  ones  you  knew  about  personally,  Dr. 
Leary."  He  remained  after  that  in  a  trancelike  state,  making  no 
further  comment.  Interestingly,  the  newspaper  report  of  the  incident 
cited  the  "verbal  scuffle,"  but  did  not  give  the  significant  details. 
Leary's  viewpoint  is  well  summed  up  by  his  statement,  cited  by  the 
press  on  February  7,  1969 :  "Psychedelic  drugs  are  the  most  revolu- 
tionary agents  discovered  by  man.  The  Establishment  should  be 
having  nightmares  about  them." 

Now,  the  Leary  matter  is  relatively  extensive,  even  in  this  conden- 
sation of  my  files  on  Leary ;  I  offer  this  in  its  entirety  to  the  committee, 
but  I  have  also  marked  certain  exhibits  that  you  may  find  par- 
ticularly handy.  There  is  no  doubt  that,  in  Leary's  own  words,  he 
and  Allen  Ginsberg  and  others  were  trying  to  get  a  drug-sex-ecstasy 
movement  started. 

Mr.  Martin.  Mr.  Chairman,  may  these  exhibits  be  accepted  with 
the  understanding  that  the  subcommittee  will  exercise  its  judgment 
in  deciding  which  if  any  of  the  items  should  be  included  in  the 
appendix  ? 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Professor  Jones.  Andrew  T.  Weil:  Then  a  student  at  Harvard 
Medical  School,  he  published  [Science  162:  1234,  December  1968], 


216 

with  Norman  Zinberg  and  Judith  Nelsen,  a  study  entitled :  "Clinical 
and  Psychological  Effects  of  Marihuana  in  Man."  The  authors  postu- 
lated that  there  may  be  a  "reverse  tolerance"  with  marihuana  use 
since  "people  do  not  become  high  on  their  first  exposure  to  mari- 
huana even  if  they  smoke  it  correctly  *  *  *  as  use  becomes  more 
frequent,  the  amount  of  drug  required  to  produce  intoxication  de- 
creases— a  unique  example  of  'reverse  tolerance.'  "  Although  the 
authors  acknowledged  the  possibility  of  other  explanations  for  the 
effect,  the  colorful  phrase,  "reverse  tolerance,"  was  seized  upon  by 
Time  in  its  report  on  this  study. 

I  replied  at  once  to  that  extravagant  claim : 

Time  speculates  about  a  "reverse  tolerance"  to  marihuana  (Dec.  20).  No 
claims  for  reverse  tolerance  have  been  made  by  responsible  persons,  even 
though  the  lack  of  response  to  marihuana  in  initial  trials  is  well  known.  I 
prefer  the  statement  of  a  pot  user,  published  by  the  columnist,  Helen  Bottel, 
in  April :  "Marihuana,  contrary  to  narcotic  drugs,  has  a  cumulative  effect, 
and  each  time  it  is  smoked  it  will  take  less  and  less  to  feel  high,  but  it  may 
take  as  many  as  four  or  five  tries  before  you  get  off  the  ground." 

My  search  into  the  matter  has  convinced  me  that  the  explanation  is  not 
that  kids  are  too  scared  to  let  the  drug  take  effect  at  first  or  that  the  pot 
reaction  is  the  result  of  suggestion  and  conditioning  or  a  reverse  tolerance. 
There  is  no  precedent  for  a  reverse  tolerance.  There  is  much  precedent  for 
accumulation  of  chemical  burdens,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  this  is  the  most 
likely  explanation — a  lasting  and  accumulative  effect  of  marihuana  on  the 
brain. 

I  have  here  as  an  exhibit  my  immediate  reply  to  this,  which  was 
also  published  in  Time  Magazine  2  weeks  later,  in  which  I  showed 
what  has  been  borne  out  today,  that  this  evidence  shows  that  mari- 
huana has  a  cumulative  effect,  not  a  reverse  tolerance. 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  ask  that  this  be  received  for  the  files  of  the  subcom- 
mittee, Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  this  will  be  done. 

Professor  Jones.  Nonetheless,  the  world  of  literary  intellectuals 
has  clung  to  the  term  "reverse  tolerance",  and  one  can  use  the  pres- 
ence of  this  phrase  at  the  present  time  as  a  device  to  tell  the  difference 
between  papers  that  are  scientifically  and  professionally  sound,  and 
papers  and  articles  on  the  cannabis  problem  that  are  propaganda 
and  fiction;  they  divide  very  equally  on  this  point.  And  none  of  the 
propaganda  for  marihuana  that  I  have  ever  known  since  the  formu- 
lation of  this  term  has  left  out  the  term  "reverse  tolerance",  which 
is  unfortunately  also  included  in  the  Shafer  Report,  which  I  con- 
sider more  a  political  and  sociological  document,  and  mistaken 
ideology 

Mr.  Martin.  Let  me  interrupt  you  at  this  point,  Dr.  Jones. 

Professor  Jones.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  used  the  word  "propaganda";  are  you  using 
propaganda  in  a  derogatory  sense  ?  After  all,  if  you  believe  in  some- 
thing that  you  believe  is  good,  is  there  something  wrong  in  making 
propaganda  for  it,  making  the  facts  known  to  other  people,  per- 
suading them? 

Professor  Jones.  That  is  a  point  that  well  can  stand  clarification. 
All  of  us  who  are  here  are  propagandists  because  that  is  the  primary 
explanation  given  in  the  dictionary.  I  have  many  causes  and  be- 
liefs that  I  adhere  to  and  I  express  myself  clearly  on  them. 


217 

However,  I  am  using  propaganda  in  the  sense  of  persons'  using  an 
incomplete  rendition  of  the  information  available  and  known  to 
them,  and  probably  being  intentionally  deceptive  in  their  presentation ; 
the  dictionary  also  covers  that  possibility. 

Mr.  Martin.  What  you  are  saying  in  effect,  you  don't  object  to 
propaganda,  you  object  to  propaganda  in  a  bad  cause. 

Professor  Jones.  Well,  I  object  to  propaganda 

Mr.  Martin.  You  object  to  it  in  a  bad  cause. 

Professor  Jones.  I  object  to  a  bad  cause,  certainly. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  dishonest  methods. 

Professor  Jones.  I  also  object,  as  a  scientist,  to  dishonest  methods. 
T  object  as  a  scientist  in  a  field  that  has  been  defined  as  a  problem, 
and  when  we  are  going  about  deciding  the  nature  of  the  problem, 
and  its  possible  resolution,  I  would  fault  myself  if  I  didn't  give  all 
the  possible  points  of  view  that  need  consideration.  I  would  con- 
sider as  scientific  propagandists,  rather  than  scientists,  those  who 
simply  give  a  single  point  of  view  and  eliminate  the  alternate  possi- 
bilities that  are  strictly  within  the  realm  of  reason. 

And  I  believe  that  has  been  done  repeatedly  with  the  term  "re- 
verse tolerance",  and  I  think  its  inclusion  in  the  Shafer  Commission 
report  along  with  a  lot  of  other  material  that  was  incorporated  in 
a  highly  uncritical  and  unfounded  fashion  places  the  report,  at 
least  partly,  in  that  category.  There  are  other  aspects  of  the  report 
that  are  not  in  discussion. 

I  come  now  to  the  case  of  Dr.  Lester  Grinspoon  of  Harvard  Uni- 
versity. Dr.  Grinspoon  cleverly  omits  references  to  any  evidence  that 
marihuana  may  have  more  than  a  transitory  effect  lasting  a  few 
hours.  He  spoofs  selected  examples  of  dramatic  adverse  effect  so  as 
to  equate  them  with  error,  in  order  to  eliminate  adverse  evidence. 
His  book,  "Marihuana  Keconsidered,"  Harvard  University  Press, 
1971,  has  been  heralded  in  the  New  York  Times  Book  Review  as 
"The  Best  Dope  on  Pot  So  Far."  The  Washington  Post,  May  30, 
1971,  in  its  review  by  Edward  Edelson  of  Grinspoon's  book,  had  this 
to  say: 

"[Grinspoon]  is  convinced  that  future  experiments  will  confirm  the  belief  that 
marihuana  is  an  extraordinarily  harmless  drug.  Here  he  may  be  optimistic  *  *  * 
use  of  marihuana  is  increasing.  Time  and  numbers  are  on  the  side  of  legaliza- 
tion. Dr.  Grinspoon's  book  is  part  of  this  movement."  The  book  followed  his 
article,  "Marihuana,"  in  Scientific  American,  December  1969.  The  content  of 
the  article  led  the  editor  to  summarize :  "There  is  considerable  evidence  that  the 
drug  is  a  comparatively  mild  intoxicant.  Its  current  notoriety  raises  interesting 
questions  about  the  motivation  of  those  who  use  it  and  those  who  seek  to 
punish  them."  Both  works  show  the  same  bias.  I  notice  in  reviewing  my  files  that 
I  marked  his  Scientific  American  publication :  "This  article  is  nothing  more 
than  promarihuana  propaganda."  That  was  in  1969.  The  intervening  years 
have  shown  that  judgment  to  be  correct.  Any  competent  scientist  reviewing 
the  medical  literature  on  effects  of  cannabis  would  have  raised  a  number  of 
serious  questions  pointing  strongly  against  the  conclusion  that  this  is  an  in- 
nocuous weed.  To  paraphrase  the  Scientific  American  Summary :  "The  current 
notoriety  of  adverse  findings  about  the  use  of  marihuana,  being  consistent  with 
the  older  medical  literature,  raises  interesting  questions  about  the  motivation 
of  professors  at  distinguished  universities  (Harvard,  Stanford,  and  Berkeley) 
who  claim  safety  in  its  use.  Do  they  use  it?" 

But  the  propaganda  is  not  entirely  the  work  of  these  mistaken 
persons.  I  accepted  an  invitation  for  a  television  debate  with  Lester 


218 

Grinspoon  to  be  held  in  Dallas  in  May  1971.  We  were  to  argue  the 
issues  for  3  hours;  then  the  station  would  edit  the  tapes  so  as  to 
produce  a  punchy  hour-long  program  to  be  used  nationally.  I  was 
familiar  with  Grinspoon's  arguments,  and  I  was  certain  that  I 
bested  him  on  each  of  them.  Fortunately,  I  took  the  trouble  to  re- 
turn to  Dallas  about  a  week  later  for  the  first  televised  showing  of 
the  edited  tape  in  Texas.  There  I  appeared,  apparently  agreeing  with 
every  outrageous  point  Grinspoon  made!  I  quickly  reached  the  local 
station  manager  and  voiced  my  complaint.  The  manager  reviewed 
the  original  tape  and  gave  me  an  equal  hour  of  prime  time  the  fol- 
lowing evening.  The  edited  tape  was  never  again  used-— at  least  to 
my  knowledge.  Obviously,  the  editor  had  liked  what  Grinspoon  said. 

Now  I  come  to  the  case  of  Dr.  Norman  E.  Zinberg :  He  is  an  assist- 
ant clinical  professor  of  psychiatry  at  Harvard  University.  On  my 
arrival  in  Boston  on  April  15,  1970,  I  read  a  front-page  story  in  the 
Globe :  "Study  Shows  Pot  Non-Progressive."  It  reported  on  a  press 
conference  called  by  Dr.  Zinberg  to  publicize  a  study  by  him  and 
Andrew  Weil  just  published  in  the  British  scientific  journal,  "Na- 
ture," under  the  title :  "A  Comparison  of  Marihuana  Users  and  Non- 
Users."  It  was  reported  that  they  had  completed  a  2-year  follow-up 
of  61  marihuana  users,  ranging  from  chronic  to  brand-new  users,  and 
had  found  absolutely  no  progression  to  harder  drugs  during  that 
interval. 

The  facts  revealed  in  his  paper,  however,  are  as  follows:  He  had 
interviewed  62  prospective  subjects  regarding  their  personal  histories 
and  attitudes  and  accepted  61  of  them.  The  24  in  the  category  of 
marihuana-naive  were  selected  as  "inhalers"  of  tobacco  cigarettes. 
The  remaining  37  were  marihuana  users :  9  "chronic"  daily  users,  28 
less  than  daily  use.  The  study  was  an  experiment  with  respect  to 
those  who  had  never  used  marihuana  before;  but  all  of  the  "com- 
parison" on  which  the  report  focuses  was  a  retrospective  study  based 
on  interviews  with  the  subjects,  rather  than  a  followup.  The  naive 
subjects  used  marihuana  only  under  Dr.  Zinberg's  supervision  and 
had  not  previously  tried  marihuana  or  any  of  the  harder  drugs, 
except  that  two  had  used  amphetamines  occasionally  to  prevent 
sleepiness.  The  text  states: 

Of  the  NN  subjects  [non-naive  marihuana  users],  one  had  tried  marihuana 
once,  seven  had  taken  it  "a  few  times" ;  the  rest  used  it  regularly — weekly  or 
even  daily.  Fifteen  .  .  .  had  tried  hashish,  and  four  had  used  LSD  (2  once,  1 
twice,  and  one  6  times).  All  the  C  group  [chronic  users]  had  tried  hashish; 
four  of  them  had  taken  LSD.  One  subject  had  taken  LSD  twice,  mescaline  twice, 
and  methedrine,  cocaine,  and  heroin  once  each.  Another  had  taken  LSD  three 
times  and  heroin  once.  Both  of  these  had  been  overseas  in  unusual  circum- 
stances when  they  had  tried  heroin  several  years  before  the  interview,  and 
neither  had  tried  it  again.  All  regular  users  [of  marihuana]  .  .  .  said  they  had 
ready  access  to  a  variety  of  psychoactive  drugs. 

In  a  letter  to  the  Globe,  I  pointed  out  that  Zinberg's  data  con- 
firmed my  own  findings  that  use  of  marihuana  led  young  people  to 
try  harder  drugs.  I  also  commented  on  the  fact  that  this  was  not  a 
2-year  follow-up.  Zinberg's  letter  of  reply  glosses  over  these  im- 
portant points  and  insists: 

One  of  the  conclusions  of  this  in-depth  study  of  63  subjects  was  that  there 
was  remarkably  little  use  of  drugs  other  than  marihuana  by  the  participants 
despite  heavy  marihuana  use  by  many  of  them. 


219 

The  key  point,  however,  is  that  24  of  the  29  regular  users  of  mari- 
huana had  tried  hashish,  eight  of  the  29  had  tried  LSD,  two  had 
tried  heroin,  and  one  had  tried  several  other  drugs,  whereas  none  of 
the  24  nonusers  had  tried  any  of  these  drugs.  Only  marihuana  users 
learn  to  experiment  with  harder  drugs,  and  some  of  them  become 
addicted  to  them. 

I  have  the  letter  here,  in  the  Boston  Globe.  There  was  no  doubt  in 
my  mind,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt,  the  evidence  is  here,  I  submit 
it  for  the  record  as  well  as  my  text  of  what  this  report,  this  man's 
study  shows. 

Mr.  Martin.  May  they  be  accepted  as  exhibits  and  printed  in  the 
appendix,  Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Professor  Jones.  There  are  various  deficiencies  in  the  Zinberg 
study,  such  as  the  fact  that  the  method  of  selecting  subjects  pre- 
cluded the  possibility  of  having  addicts  in  the  study  population ;  but 
it  would  be  inappropriate  to  expand  the  analysis  here.  The  myth  of 
nonprogression  from  marihuana  to  more  powerful  drugs,  as  generated 
in  this  article  and  the  accompanying  press  conference,  has  stayed  in 
the  promarihuana  literature.  Like  "reverse  tolerance",  citation  of 
this  study  in  defense  of  marihuana  is  an  indicator  of  pseudoscientific 
treatment  of  the  topic  of  drug  abuse. 

In  spite  of  my  public  disclosure  of  the  falsity  of  Professor  Zin- 
berg's  conclusion,  he  appeared  a  few  weeks  later  as  a  guest  on  a 
nationwide  TV  program  and  gave  the  same  presentation,  claiming 
proof  that  marihuana  users  do  not  progress  to  other  drugs.  I  com- 
plained to  the  network  by  telephone  and  letter,  but  there  was  no 
correction  of  this  propaganda. 

Then  there  is  John  Kaplan.  His  book,  "Marihuana—The  New 
Prohibition,"  is  a  persuasive  argument  that  those  wishing  to  use 
cannabis  should  be  allowed  to  use  it  as  they  wish,  as  is  the  case  with 
alcohol.  It  is  a  libertarian  and  legal  argument  without  scientific 
competence.  The  author  selects  evidence  on  only  one  side  of  the  issue, 
citing  a  variety  of  writings  that  marihuana  is  a  mild  drug,  essen- 
tially harmless.  Although  the  legal  argument  is  well  put,  it  cannot 
overcome  the  real  evidence  that  cannabis  users  are  mentally  dulled 
persistently  and  without  capacity  for  knowing  the  difference.  A 
legal  scholar  such  as  a  Stanford  University  professor  of  law  should 
have  made  a  more  thorough  search  for  competent  sources.  He  is 
shown  to  be  a  propagandist  by  the  bias  of  his  book. 

In  a  special  class  is  Edward  M.  Brecher,  principal  author  of 
"Licit  and  Illicit  Drugs,"  the  Consumers  Union  report  on  narcotics, 
stimulants,  depressants,  inhalants,  hallucinogens,  and  marihuana — 
including  caffeine,  nicotine,  and  alcohol. 

Brecher  has  assembled  much  interesting  material,  and  it  is  a  com- 
pendium worth  having,  but  only  if  one  sets  aside  most  of  his  argu- 
ments and  conclusions.  They  simply  reflect  the  marihuana-is-harm- 
less  view.  In  substantiating  this  point,  Brecher  has  simply  used  the 
promarihuana '  literature  and  omitted  reference  to  authorities  show- 
ing adverse  effects.  The  hasty  publication  of  the  Consumers  Union 
report  without  inclusion  of  major  scientific  works  on  the  subject 
and  without  critical  review  by  competent  authorities  has  yet  to  be 


220 

explained  by  the  Consumers  Union.  Its  publication  has  helped  in 
the  movement  to  legalize  marihuana. 

Dr.  Joel  Fort  of  San  Francisco  has  been  another  tireless  worker 
for  the  legalization  of  marihuana.  He  states  that  he  is  against  drugs 
and  that  marihuana  should  not  be  used.  Yet,  other  acts  and  argu- 
ments presented  by  him  have  the  opposite  impact.  I  have  opposed 
him  in  debate  many  times.  Occasionally,  depending  on  the  kind  of 
audience,  he  has  stated  that  marihuana  is  harmless.  Mostly,  he  draws 
a  picture  of  a  world  so  bad  that  use  of  marihuana  is  a  welcome  re- 
lief, as  the  lesser  of  two  evils.  In  his  teaching  on  the  Berkeley 
campus — lecturer,  School  of  Criminology — students  report  that  he 
asserts  that  marihuana  is  less  harmful  than  alcohol  and  cigarettes. 
Followers  of  Dr.  Fort,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  have  tried  to  dis- 
rupt my  class  on  drugs,  as  illustrated  in  the  attached  articles  from 
the  Daily  Californian,  the  daily  paper  of  the  Berkeley  campus,  and 
from  the  Berkeley  Daily  Gazette. 

Persons  associated  with  the  campaign  to  legalize  marihuana  have 
continued  to  harass  my  teaching  activities.  On  the  opening  day  of 
this  quarter — April  1,  1974 — in  my  course  on  drug  use  and  abuse, 
offensive  leaflets  attacking  me  as  a  person  were  distributed  to  the 
class  of  approximately  400  students.  The  source  of  the  leaflet  is  not 
identified  but  it  was  rumored  to  be  from  the  California  Marihuana 
initiative  group.  Apparently  this  was  part  of  a  plan  in  which  my 
class  had  been  chosen  as  a  target  in  order  to  gain  public  attention 
in  the  campaign  for  an  initiative  to  legalize  marihuana ;  but  the  ini- 
tiative had  just  then  failed  to  get  enough  petition  signatures  to  be 
on  the  June  ballot.  The  supporters  nevertheless  "gave  me  the  treat- 
ment." 

Samuel  Irwin  is  a  professor  of  psychopharmacology  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Oregon  Medical  School.  An  example  of  his  marked  bias 
toward  the  belief  that  the  use  of  marihuana  is  safe  is  contained  in  a 
pamphlet :  "Drugs  of  Abuse :  An  Introduction  to  Their  Actions  and 
Potential  Hazards".  The  bulk  of  this  pamphlet  is  a  flawless  discus- 
sion of  effects  and  hazards  of  drugs.  Irwin  fails,  however,  to  give 
any  significant  warning  about  the  considerable  hazard  from  use  of 
USD-25  or  cannabis.  The  remarks  in  the  section,  "A  Look  to  the 
Future",  are  especially  disturbing: 

Drugs  have  positive  short-term  uses  for  recreation,  for  an  unique  experience, 
to  enhance  performance,  to  produce  a  change  to  some  desired  state,  for  con- 
trolling feelings  of  anger  or  distress  (to  promote  well-being),  or  as  important 
tools  in  learning  some  of  what  it  is  humanly  possible  to  achieve  in  awareness, 
relationships  and  spiritual  growth  (more-being,  as  with  LSD  and  marihuana). 
But  the  real  challenge  of  personal  development  is  to  learn  to  go  it  alone  with- 
out drugs  to  achieve  a  higher,  lasting  level  of  spiritual  growth,  self-actualization 
and  control;  it  is  possible  in  no  other  way.  This  is  certainly  an  encouragement 
to  experiment  with  drugs,  in  spite  of  the  exhortation  to  "learn  to  go  it  alone 
without  drugs". 

PROPAGANDA    FOR    MARIHUANA    FROM   THE    "RIGHT" 

On  many  occasions  of  debate  with  those  advocating  the  legaliza- 
tion of  marihuana,  I  have  listened  to  such  statements  as  "even  the 
conservative  experts  appointed  by  President  Nixon  on  the  Mari- 
huana [Shafer]  Commission  agree  that  it  is  a  mild  drug  and  should 


221 

be  legalized."  Fortunately,  the  foolish  portions  of  the  Shafer  Com- 
mission's report  were  too  ambiguous  to  be  convincing. 

The  turnabout  of  William  F.  Buckley,  Jr.  in  reporting  (Decem- 
ber 1$72)  that  he  had  used  marihuana,  found  it  harmless,  and  ad- 
vises decriminalization,  is  a  different  matter.  His  unambiguous  state- 
ment, his  stature  as  a  leader,  and  the  reversal  of  his  former  position 
had  a  widespread  impact,  I  contacted  Mr.  Buckley  by  telephone  and 
letter  and  was  led  to  believe  that  he  had  invited  me  to  reply  in  a 
statement  to  his  paper,  the  National  Review.  My  essay  was  sent  at 
once  (December  14,  1972)  but  was  never  published,  nor  did  Mr. 
Buckley  provide  an  explanation  for  withdrawal  of  his  invitation. 

OTHER  PROPAGANDISTS 

The  above  listing  of  propagandists  is  by  no  means  complete,  even 
with  regard  to  the  major  figures.  There  are  prestigious  persons  other 
than  Bill  Buckley  who  have  given  occasional  aid  to  the  marihuana 
movement;  the  list  includes  Dr.  Margaret  Mead  and  Dr.  Roger  O. 
Egeberg.  They  have  been  silent  recently ;  perhaps  the  growing  body 
of  evidence  against  the  safe  use  of  cannabis  has  caused  them  to  sense 
their  error.  If  that  is  so,  I  urge  them  to  speak  up  and  redirect  those 
who  were  misled  by  their  earlier  statements.  I  cannot  attempt  to 
provide  a  list  of  such  persons;  it  would  be  very  long.  But  the  situa- 
tion is  clear;  many  have  spoken  in  defense  of  marihuana  without 
valid  justification. 

PROPAGANDA  FOR  MARIHUANA  IN  THE  EDUCATIONAL  SYSTEM 

All  about  me  in  the  educational  world  I  observe  examples  of  bias 
in  favor  of  drugs.  My  many  public  letters  on  the  subject  of  effects 
of  marihuana  have  drawn  answers  from  a  few  members  of  university 
faculties  who  hold  that  the  use  of  marihuana  is  beneficial.  Since  these 
persons  claim  that  they  teach  about  drugs,  I  presume  that  they  advo- 
cate the  use  of  marihuana.  In  one  instance  I  can  be  certain  that  this 
was  the  case.  The  facts  cited  pertain  to  a  large  course,  Sociology  1, 
given  in  the  Winter  Quarter,  1973,  at  Berkeley.  I  have  the  statement 
of  a  student  who  gave  me  the  study  assignment  sheet  and  the  text 
of  the  assignment.  The  text  is  Targets  for  Change:  Perspectives  on 
an  Active  Sociology,  edited  by  Bateman  and  Petersen,  Xerox  Col- 
lege Publishing,  Lexington,  Mass./Toronto,  1971.  All  of  the  chapters 
in  this  book  reflect  the  New-Left  varieties  of  social  change,  but  the 
example  of  assigned  reading  is  Chapter  5.  Becoming  a  Marihuana 
User,  by  Howard  S.  Becker.  Of  all  the  promarihuana  articles  I  have 
read,  this  is  the  most  likely  to  induce  the  naive  person  to  try  the  ex- 
perience and  to  convince  the  occasional  user  that  he  has  set  himself  on 
a  path  toward  ever-unfolding  pleasure.  The  chapter  contained  no 
information  of  any  other  point  of  view. 

The  point  I  wish  to  make  is  that  all  the  students  in  the  class  were 
required  to  read  the  most  persuasive  argument  that  I  have  ever 
known  for  the  use  of  marihuana.  I  think  that  reading  it  would  be  the 
biggest  bait  that  a  person  who  had  not  yet  used  marihuana  might 
have,  as  his  required  reading.  And  anybody  who  is  already  a  mari- 


222 

huana  user  would  read  it  and  be  certain  that  he  has  been  lucky 
enough  to  start  out  on  the  new  road  to  the  future. 

This  kind  of  instruction  does  not  occur  in  all  college  classes  in 
sociology,  but  it  is  a  very  common  thing,  taking  the  larger  univer- 
sities in  the  United  States,  and  many  other  college  campuses. 

Mr.  Martin.  May  these  documents  be  accepted,  Mr.  Chairman, 
for  the  record,  with  the  understanding  that  the  subcommittee  will 
exercise  its  discretion  in  deciding  which  of  these  documents  if  any 
to  incorporate  in  the  appendix  as  exhibits? 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

Professor  Jones.  Also,  at  Berkeley,  several  other  courses  consider 
drug  use.  Dr.  Joel  Fort  gives  such  a  course,  and  the  others  are  also 
in  the  hands  of  persons  who  believe  in  the  moderate  use  of  drugs  to 
enrich  life  or  for  recreation.  Perhaps  most  students  are  not  fooled, 
however,  since  my  class  on  drug  abuse  draws  many  more  students. 
The  more  subtle  propaganda  for  drugs  is  that  which  appears  as  an 
element  of  courses  in  psychology  or  sociology  or  anthropology  in 
which  the  advocacy  of  the  marihuana  experience  is  a  secondary  part 
of  instruction.  Such  examples  appear  to  be  common. 

MISINFORMATION  STEMMING  FROM  OFFICIAL  GOVERNMENT  REPORTS 

The  Federal  Government,  through  its  official  commissions  and 
agencies,  has  been  one  of  the  worst  offenders  in  spreading  the  im- 
pression that  cannabis  is  a  relatively  harmless  drug. 

I  would  like  to  offer  for  the  record  a  copy  of  my  own  prepared 
testimony  before  the  Shafer  Commission.  I  appeared  before  the 
Shafer  Commission,  and  I  have  no  evidence  whatsoever  that  any  of 
the  significant  and  important  things  I  was  able  to  tell  them  had  any 
impact,  or  got  to  any  use  by  the  committee.  Also,  when  I  appeared 
before  the  Shafer  Commission,  I  was  humiliated  and  attacked  in  a 
most  unbelievable  way,  not  only  by  one  of  the  promarihuana  com- 
missioners, but  also  treated  rudely  and  badly  by  Governor  Shafer 
himself. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  you  be  prepared  to  name  the  promarihuana 
commissioner? 

Professor  Jones.  Professor  Ungerleider,  a  colleague  from  the  Uni- 
versity of  California  at  Los  Angeles. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  are  positive  in  your  own  mind  that  he  is  actually 
promarihuana  ? 

Professor  Jones.  I  have  no  doubt  from  the  things  that  he  has 
written,  and  I  have  a  letter  from  him  and  an  exchange  back  from  me 
on  this  very  subject  in  the  folder. 

Mr.  Martin.  Would  you  continue? 

Professor  Jones.  Reports  of  the  Department  of  Health,  Educa- 
tion, and  Welfare,  are  inadequate  scientifically,  do  not  treat  ac- 
curately the  principal  matters  needing  clarification  and,  in  many 
instances,  are  likely  to  lead  the  public  to  believe  that  science  has 
proven  marihuana  harmless.  Upon  the  release  of  the  HEW  report 
on  marihuana,  1973,  the  Detroit  Free  Press  carried  this  story : 

Study  Finds  Marihuana  Not  Harmful  *  *  *  The  definitive  answer  probably 
is  years  away,  but  the  Federal  Government,  particularly  the  Department  of 
Health,  Education,  and  Welfare,  is  commissioning  many  projects  to  find  out — 


223 

(Remember,  it  was  HEW's  surgeon  general  that  issued  the  now  famous  ciga- 
rette warning  that  appears  on  every  pack.)  But  one  of  the  first  HEW  studies 
to  be  completed  comes  to  an  astonishing  conclusion :  Chronic  use  of  marihuana 
has  no  apparent  harmful  effects. 

The  above  listing  of  propaganda,  propagandists  and  invalid  re- 
ports does  not  by  any  means  cover  all  the  sources  of  these  harmful 
activities.  As  of  May  1974,  several  State  legislatures  are  considering 
bills  that,  if  passed,  will  for  all  practical  purposes,  legalize  mari- 
huana. In  Washington,  D.C.,  the  Mayor's  Advisory  Committee  on 
Narcotics  Addiction  recommended  the  "legal  growth,  manufacture, 
and  supply  of  marihuana."  The  first  point  of  the  chairman,  Mr. 
Frank  H.  Rich,  was,  "No  demonstrable  evidence  is  available  to  sup- 
port the  assertion  that  marihuana  use  is  hazardous  or  detrimental  to 
the  physical  or  mental  health  of  the  user."  He  acknowledged  credit 
to  the  Shafer  Report  and  to  Professor  Kaplan's  book,  "Marihuana — 
the  New  Prohibition".  The  sources  of  propaganda  are  cited  as  ref- 
erences again  and  again,  as  though  they  were  valid,  and  when  the 
work  depends  on  these  sources,  it  makes  no  use  of  the  available  sci- 
entific information. 

THE  MEDIA  AND  PROMARIHUANA  PROPAGANDA 

For  a  decade  now,  newspapers,  journals,  radio,  and  television  have 
repeatedly  featured  promarihuana  spokesmen  like  Timothy  Leary, 
Joel  Fort,  Lester  Grinspoon,  and  Norman  Zinberg.  If  the  principle 
of  equal  time  were  invoked,  the  networks  would  by  now  owe  some 
hundreds  of  hours,  at  least,  to  scientists  whose  work  on  marihuana 
had  led  them  to  the  opposite  conclusion.  In  placing  their  facilities  at 
the  disposal  of  this  onesided  propaganda  campaign,  the  news  media 
may  have  succeeded  in  brainwashing  themselves,  in  addition  to  the 
brainwashing  of  a  substantial  portion  of  the  American  public.  At 
least,  one  cannot  escape  the  impression  that  many  people  in  the  media 
now  seem  to  have  convinced  themselves  that  marihuana  is  perfectly 
safe  and  that  the  public  interest  demands  its  legalization. 

The  Shafer  Commission  Report,  paraphrased,  said:  "Marihuana 
is  harmful;  however,  let  us  decriminalize  it."  The  propagandists  in 
the  media  are,  perhaps,  somewhat  more  consistent.  Though  they 
quote  the  Sha»fer  Report  and  the  Consumers  Union  Report,  they 
are  likely  to  put  the  argument  in  these  terms:  "Marihuana  is  safe; 
let  us  legalize  it."  In  the  form  of  arguments  most  commonly  propa- 
gated by  the  media,  the  call  for  legalization  is  almost  invariably 
preceded  by  some  kind  of  assurance  that  marihuana  is  safe,  or  at 
least  relatively  harmless :  you  use  it  and  live  without  any  apparent 
difference. 

The  form  of  presentation  that  started  in  the  underground  media 
moved  upward  into  the  "respectable"  journals.  I  choose  these  ex- 
amples as  flagrant  propaganda : 

Esquire,  July  1968,  published  an  article  by  Timothy  Leary,  "In 
the  Beginning,  Leary  Turned  on  Ginsberg  and  Saw  that  it  was  Good 
.  .  .  And  then  Leary  and  Ginsberg  Decided  to  Turn  on  the  Whole 
World."  This  is  a  personal  testimonial  by  Leary  of  the  solace  and 
comforting  strength  he  claims  to  have  found  in  his  cult  of  free  sex 
and  drugs. 


224 

Playboy,  October  1969,  carried  a  lead  article  by  Joel  Fort,  M.D. : 
"Pot :  A  Rational  Approach."  This  article  is  an  uncritical  review  of 
Grinspoon,  Zinberg,  Weil,  Mikuriya  and  other  sources  commonly 
used  to  give  the  impression  that  scientific  findings  confirm  the  safety 
of  marihuana  or  at  least  the  lack  of  significant  adverse  effects.  I 
quote  an  excerpt: 

And  marihuana,  decidedly,  is  not  a  narcotic,  although  just  what  it  should  be 
called  is  something  of  a  mystery.  The  tendency  these  days  is  to  call  it  a  "mild 
psychedelic,"  with  emphasis  on  mild ;  this  is  encouraged  by  the  Tim  Leary 
crowd  .  .  .  and  by  those  to  whom  psychedelic  is  a  monster  word  denoting  hal- 
lucinations, insanity,  suicide,  and  chaos. 

The  text  goes  diffusely  on  to  scramble  pharmacological  terms.  The 
point  is,  Dr.  Fort  claims  marihuana  is  a  very  mild  something.  The 
same  Dr.  Fort  was  quoted  by  the  Oakland  Tribune,  May  26,  1966 : 

LSD  THREAT  LESS  THAN  ALCOHOLISM— LSD  is  dangerous  enough,  but 
it  poses  a  far  lesser  threat  to  the  populace  than  alcohol,  sedatives,  stimulants 
and  tranquilizers,  or  even  the  use  of  tobacco,  according  to  Dr.  Fort. 

He  was  asking  clergymen  to  help  maintain  an  unbiased  attitude 
toward  this  powerful  new  drug.  Even  readers  of  Playboy  are  en- 
titled to  a  reasonable  degree  of  competence  in  a  supposedly  scientific 
evaluation. 

Psychology  Today,  January  1973,  carried  an  article  by  Timothy 
Leary:  "The  Principles  and  Practice  of  Hedonic  Psychology  and 
an  Explication  of  the  Seven  Levels  of  Consciousness  (Pleasure)." 
It  is  fair  to  say  that  this  is  an  unrestrained  effort  to  recruit  the 
reader  into  the  Leary  world  of  marihuana  and  beyond. 

Surely  the  media  have  an  obligation  to  end  the  one-sided  exposure 
of  readers  and  viewers  to  this  kind  of  propaganda.  It  is,  of  course, 
interesting  to  have  essays  in  science  fiction,  but  is  this  not  too  much  ? 
And  can  it  qualify  as  science  at  all  ?  True  science  fiction  has  always 
been  an  extrapolation  from  scientific  observation;  these  stories  are 
based  on  illusion. 

THE   ENTERTAINMENT   INDUSTRY   AND   PROMARIHUANA    PROPAGANDA 

Another  important  element  in  the  barrage  of  promarihuana  and 
prodrug  propaganda  is  the  output  of  our  entertainment  industry. 

There  have  been  prodrug  films  such  as  "Easy  Rider",  which  sym- 
pathetically portrayed  the  life  of  young  people  caught  up  in  the 
drug  culture,  including  the  use  and  sale  of  marihuana. 

And  then  there  was  the  brilliantly  made  but  criminally  damaging 
film,  "Superfly,"  which  glamorized  the  lives  of  two  black  cocaine 
wholesalers,  in  a  manner  which  brought  protests  from  black  com- 
munity leaders  in  Washington.  D.C.,  and  in  other  cities.  I  quote  what 
the  New  York  Times  film  reviewer  said  about  "Superfly,"  because  I 
consider  this  statement  to  be  illustrative  of  the  blindness  and  toler- 
ance— yes,  and  the  perversity — that  has  reduced  our  media  in  too 
many  instances  to  handmaidens  of  the  prodrug  propagandists.  Here 
is  the  quote: 

That  the  film — Superfly — does  not  also  belong  with  those  movies  portraying 
the  evils  of  drugs  must  be  the  result  of  very  intelligent  calculation ;  for  there 
is  no  moralizing,  not  even  the  subtle  silent  kind,  and  the  film's  most  eloquent 
spoken  passage  is  given  to  Priest's  partner — Priest  is  "Superfly"— when  he  de- 
fends dealing  as  a  way  of  life. 


225 

In  March  1971,  Edith  Efron  wrote  an  article  for  TV  Guide  ana- 
lyzing 24  "drug  dramas"  that  had  appeared  on  14  dramatic  series 
over  the  previous  year.  Heroin  was  given  uniform  and  negative 
treatment  in  the  plays.  Five  of  these  plays  portrayed  the  hazards  of 
pep  pills  and  barbiturates.  But  only  one  play  dramatized  the  hazards 
of  marihuana.  Summing  up,  Ms.  Efron  said : 

What  does  all  this  add  up  to?  It  adds  up  to  this:  a  flood  of  plays  allegedly 
reflecting  the  contemporary  white  "drug  culture,"  which  soft-pedal  or  omit  every 
major  aspect  of  that  culture,  *  *  *  which  strongly  intimate  that  the  guilt  for 
the  drug  epidemic  lies  with  white  middle-class  America  and  its  traditional 
values  *  *  *  which  morally  whitewash  the  drug  takers  *  *  *  and  which  por- 
tray— in  the  case  of  the  heroin  addicts — their  intense  medically  documented 
suffering. 

The  recording  industry  has  played  a  major  role  as  a  vehicle  for 
prodrug — primarily  promarihuana — propaganda.  Scores  of  such 
songs  have  been  recorded  by  folk  singers  and  rock  groups  and  be- 
came best  sellers  and  top  favorites  of  disc  jockeys  across  the  country. 
Some  of  the  better  known  ones  are :  "White  Rabbit",  "Magic  Carpet 
Ride",  and  "Comin'  Into  Los  Angeles." 

In  early  1971,  the  FCC  issued  a  warning  about  broadcasting  song 
lyrics  that  might  encourage  young  people  to  use  or  experiment  with 
drugs.  Some  of  the  stations  reacted  affirmatively  to  this  warning.  But 
some  resisted.  The  Recording  Industry  Association  of  America  peti- 
tioned the  FCC  to  rescind  its  warning  because,  it  said,  the  warning 
has  become  a  "rallying  cry  for  arbitrary  action  by  censors  and  vigi- 
lantes." James  Caroll,  program  director  of  WKCR-FM  at  Columbia 
University,  told  the  New  York  Times:  "For  them  to  try  to  suppress 
drug  songs  is  a  tendency  to  stomp  all 'over  the  First  Amendment." 

I'm  all  for  the  First  Amendment.  I  believe  it  was  Justice  Holmes, 
however,  who  pointed  out  that  the  First  Amendment  does  not  cover 
the  right  to  shout  "Fire"  in  a  crowded  theatre.  Although  I  am  not  a 
lawyer,  I  feel  strongly  that  it  also  does  not  cover  the  right  to  carry 
on  a  false  and  insidious  propaganda  campaign  in  favor  of  drugs 
which  have  already  destroyed  the  lives  of  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  young  people — a  campaign  which  will,  if  it  goes  unchecked, 
seriously  undermine  the  health  and  morale  of  our  people  and  the 
security  of  our  Nation. 

The  above  observations  do  not  reveal  the  full  extent  to  which  the 
broadcast  media  or  the  media  of  print  push  marihuana.  Leary  fol- 
lowers are  abundant  in  the  world  of  the  media  and  remarks  about 
pot  are  common,  as  common  today  as  remarks  about  tobacco  or  al- 
cohol. In  California  during  the  public  debate  in  1972  over  the  initia- 
tive measure  to  legalize  marihuana,  the  media  were  careful  to  try 
to  obtain  competent  persons  to  present  the  opposing  side.  Making 
such  presentations  fatigued  the  few  experts  who  could  give  the  ac- 
curate information  needed.  On  the  promarihuana  side,  no  expertise 
was  necessary  to  give  the  argument  centering  on  keeping  the  mari- 
huana user  out  of  jail — a  misleading  argument,  but  one  with  appeal. 
Dr.  Fort  and  a  large  number  of  lay  persons  took  advantage  of  every 
opportunity  they  could  to  speak  for  the  proposition.  In  almost  every 
instance,  their  real  argument  was  "It's  safe."  The  authority  quoted 
was  always  the  Shafer  Report,  used  in  a  way  to  obscure  all  the 
cautionary  passages. 


226 

The  media  need  to  do  some  searching;  of  conscience  to  find  the 
means  of  achieving  balance  when  qualified  professionals  are  not 
available. 

THE    ROLE   OF   RADICAL   PROPAGANDA 

Radical  propaganda  has  also  played  a  major  role  in  the  spread  of 
the  drug  epidemic  and,  in  particular,  of  the  marihuana-hashish 
epidemic. 

When  I  say  "radical",  I  mean  primarily  the  New  Left  rather 
than  the  Old  Left.  The  New  Left  has  today  lost  much  of  its  strength, 
but  just  a  few  years  back  it  was  a  potent  force,  on  and  off  the  cam- 
pus. It  was  a  broad  and  variegated  phenomenon.  Although  some  of 
the  organizations  and  leaders  and  publications  involved  in  the  New 
Left  appeared  to  be  "far  out,"  or  even  entertaining,  virtually  all  of 
them  had  to  be  considered  revolutionary  in  the  sense  that  they  were 
militantly  opposed  to  the  capitalist  system  and  the  established  order 
and  favored  the  use  of  violent  means  to  bring  about  its  overthrow. 

Perhaps  the  principal  vehicle  of  the  New  Left  movement  was  the 
underground  press.  The  underground  press  has  undergone  consider- 
able attrition  in  recent  years,  but  not  so  long  ago  every  major  Amer- 
ican city  had  one  or  several  underground  papers,  and  even  relatively 
small  cities  had  their  own  local  underground  press.  The  small  papers 
circulated  no  more  than  a  few  thousand  copies  per  week;  the  larger 
papers  had  weekly  circulations  that  ran  as  high  as  200,000.  It  has 
been  reported  that,  at  the  height  of  the  phenomenon!,  there  were 
some  800  underground  papers  in  the  country,  with  a  total  readership 
of  roughly  20,000,000  young  people. 

I  have  yet  to  see  an  underground  newspaper  that  was  not  actively 
engaged  in  the  promarihuana  propaganda  campaign.  Let  me  give  you 
a  few  examples  of  their  propaganda. 

Timothy  Leary,  the  guru  of  the  New  Left  drug  cultists,  was  carried 
almost  on  a  syndicated  basis  by  just  about  the  entire  underground 
press.  Let  me  quote  a  few  of  Chairman  Leary's  words  of  wisdom. 

On  January  2,  1969,  Leary  told  the  Berkeley  Gazette :  "Drugs  are 
the  most  efficient  way  to  revolution  *  *  *  I'm  for  anything  that  dis- 
rupts the  university.  The  only  way  a  university  can  serve  any  useful 
purpose  is  in  turning  people  on  and  making  them  feel  good." 

On  October  25,  1969,  Leary  wrote  an  article  for  the  Los  Angeles 
Free  Press,  an  underground  paper,  in  which  he  said : 

I  think  dealing  is  the  noblest  of  all  human  professions,  and  urge  any  crea- 
tive young  person  to  consider  it  *  *  *  I  remember  talking  recently  to  a  group 
of  clear-eyed,  smiling,  beautiful  dealers.  They  were  young  men  in  their 
twenties,  as  all  dealers  have  to  be  young.  At  that  time  their  life  situation 
was  close  to  perfect. 

In  a  tape  recording  brought  back  by  Jennifer  Dohrn  after  visiting 
Leary  in  Algeria  in  October  1971,  Leary  said :  "Blow  your  minds, 
and  blow  up  the  prisons  and  the  controlling  centers  of  the  genocidal 
culture  *  *  *  The  political  revolutionary  must  be  turned  on  to  seek 
and  tap  his  internal  energy." 

I  offer  copies  of  these  items  for  the  record. 

I  have  here  another  item,  from  The  Rat,  a  Bay  Area  underground 
paper,  dated  October  8,  1969.  Here  is  a  brief  excerpt:  "*  *  *  when 
the  youth  in  large  numbers  embraces  pot,  it  signifies  a  very  funda- 


227 


mental  rejection  of  Amerikan  bourgeois  society."  American  is  spelled 
with  a  "k". 

The  Berkeley  campus  had  an  official  publication  called  "Orienta- 
tion." I  have  here  an  item  taken  from  an  underground  counterpubli- 
cation  called  "Disorientation :  notes  from  the  underdog."  Let  me 
quote  one  brief  paragraph:  "Society  hates  drugs  because  they  can 
giye  people  ideas  and  visions  of  beauty  and  love  and  make  them 
realize  that  this  current  society  has  to  be  brought  down  and  totally 
rebuilt." 

Mr.  Martin.  Do  you  believe  the  underground  press  exercised  any 
significant  influence  on  our  young  people  in  promoting  the  cannabis 
epidemic  ? 

Professor  Jones.  I  think  there  is  no  doubt  whatsoever  it  had  a 
tremendous  impact.  Here  are  other  things,  here  is  a  thing  related 
to  the  underground  press  which  is  actually  a  book — this  is  a  photo 
copy  part  of  the  book — it  is  in  the  same  vein,  it  is  incredible. 

Mr.  Martin.  Why,  if  it  is  a  New  Left  booklet,  do  you  consider  it 
promarihuana  ? 

Professor  Jones.  Because  from  the  beginning  there  was  an  inter- 
twining of  the  New  Left  with  the  drug  movement. 

Mr.  Martin.  And  this  is  representative  of  the  book  itself? 
Professor  Jones.  It  is  representative  of  the  book  itself,  and  there 
are  many  other  statements,  especially  in  the  White  Panther  Society — 
I  have  a  copy  of  their  text  here,  too.  The  platform  of  the  White 
Panthers  is  under  point  3,  and  it  says,  "Total  assault  on  the  culture 
by  any  means  necessary,  including  rock-and-roll,  dope,  and" — excuse 

me —  " in  the  streets." 

I'm  afraid  I'm  a  little  callous  on  some  of  these  four-letter  words, 

coming  from  a  community 

Mr.  Martin.  It  will  have  to  be  edited  when  the  record  is  printed, 
Professor  Jones. 

Professor  — ones.  This  is  the  flag  of  the  White  Panther  Society. 
You  can  see  that  over  the  red  star  there  is  a  marihuana  leaf;  it  is 
not  a  fig  leaf,  it  is  a  leaf  of  the  cannabis  plant.  The  White  Panther 
Movement  may  by  this  time  have  gone  out  of  existence,  but  it  was  at 
one  time  a  very  active  group.  I  have  here  as  another  exhibit  a  photo- 
graph taken  at  the  White  Panther  booth  at  a  Michigan  rock  festival. 
A  typical  example  of  New  Left  drug  propaganda  is  a  formal  pub- 
lication by  Lyle  Stuart,  Inc.,  New  York,  "The  Anarchist  Cook 
Book" — which  I  show  you  here.  In  addition  to  recipes  for  bombs  to 
be  made  "in  the  kitchen,"  methods  for  the  preparation  of  many 
drugs  are  given.  Ordinary  recipes  include  instructions  for  making 
marihuana  salad,  hashish  soup  and  hashish  cookies.  The  introductory 
chapter  on  drugs  states :  "The  use  of  drugs  comes  under  the  birth  of 
a  new  culture  *  *  *  The  use  of  drugs  in  this  new  culture  will  be 
free  *  *  *  for  there  will  be  no  more  jails."  And  the  author  quotes 
Jerry  Rubin :  "Pot  is  central  to  the  revolution.  It  weakens  social  con- 
ditioning and  helps  create  a  whole  new  state  of  mind.  The  slogans 
of  the  revolution  are  going  to  be  pot,  freedom,  license,  the  bolsheviks 
of  the  revolution  will  be  longhaired  pot  smokers."  x 

1  The  original  quotation  is  from  Avant-Garde.  N.Y.,  March  1969,  p.  33.  Article  by  Peter 
Sehieldahl,  "Thoughts  of  Chairman  Jerry." 


228 


jps 


FLAG  OF  THE  WHITE  PANTHER  PARTY 

(The  body  of  the  flag  is  black;  the  center  star  is  red;  the  superimposed  mari- 
juana sprig  is  green) 

I  have  in  the  files  that  I  have  brought  here  today  and  in  my  files 
at  Berkeley  literally  thousands  of  such  items,  culled  from  the  under- 
ground press  and  leftist  publications.  There  is  absolutely  no  doubt 
my  mind 'that  the  total  impact  of  this  propaganda,  endlessly  re- 
peated in  hundreds  of  underground  papers  across  the  country  and  in 
thousands  of  tracts,  played  a  major  role  in  the  spread  of  the  drug 
epidemic. 

The  underground  newspapers  were  generally  not  identified  with 
any  specific  New  Left  organization,  although  they  shared  the  New 


229 

Left  ideology.  The  formal  organizations  in  the  New  Left  movement 
were  divided  on  the  issue  of  marihuana.  SDS — Students  for  a  Demo- 
cratic Society— to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  did  not  encourage  the 
use  of  marihuana,  although  its  members  were  far  from  being  drug 
teetotalers.  Marihuana  has  been  regarded  with  favor,  however,  by 
the  Weathermen,  the  Black  Panthers,  the  White  Panthers,  Leary's 
Brotherhood  of  Eternal  Love,  and,  currently,  by  the  Symbionese 
Liberation  Army.  In  the  case  of  the  last-named  organization,  I  have 
a  document  which  shows  that  marihuana  is  used  in  a  ritualistic 
manner  by  the  SLA. 

It  must  not  be  imagined  that  these  New  Left  revolutionaries  were 
ineffective  because  they  were  so  strange — even  kooky.  The  thing  that 
made  the  New  Left  revolutionaries  effective  despite  their  strange 
ways  was  that  they  were  always  sensational  news ;  and  they  were,  in 
consequence,  frequently  able  to  exploit  the  curiosity  of  the  press  in 
order  to  promote  their  promarihuana  propaganda.  In  his  book, 
"Future  Shock,"  author  Allen  Tomer  quoted  this  passage  from  a 
letter  written  by  New  Left  poet  Allen  Ginsberg  to  Timothy  Leary : 

Yesterday  I  got  on  TV  with  N.  Mailer  and  with  Ashley  Montagu  and  gave 
big  speech  *  *  *  recommending  everybody  get  high  *  *  *  Got  in  touch  with  all 
the  liberal  prodope  people  I  know  to  have  [a  certain  prodrug  report]  publi- 
cized and  circulated.  I  wrote  a  five-page  summary  of  the  situation  to  this  friend 
Kenny  Love  on  The  New  York  Times  and  he  said  he'd  perhaps  do  a  story  (news- 
wise)  *  *  *  which  could  then  be  picked  up  by  U.P.  friend  on  national  wire.  Also 
gave  copy  to  Al  Aronowitz  on  New  York  Post  and  Rosalind  Constable  at  Time 
and  Bob  Silvers  on  Harper's  *  *  *. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  our  media — including  reputable  news- 
papers and  TV  personalities  and  publishers — permitted  themselves 
to  be  used  bv  the  New  Left  propagandists.  As  an  illustration  of  what 
I  mean  bv  "permitted  themselves  to  be  used,"  I  have  here  a  copy  of 
"The  Little  Red  School  Book,"  which  was  published  by  the  Pocket 
Book  Division  of  Simon  &  Schuster.  "The  Little  Red  School  Book" 
is  a  militant  New  Left  sensualist  manual,  written  at  a  junior  high 
school  level.  It  gives  explicit  instructions  on  how  to  take  over  the 
classroom,  intimidate  the  teacher,  engage  in  sexual  intercourse,  mas- 
turbate, take  the  pill,  on  how  to  become  involved  in  expanded  sexual 
experiences,  and  on  how  to  use  drugs.  On  page  183,  it  reads : 

"Remember,  being  high  can  be  fun.  But  don't  count  on  working 
or  learning  anything  while  the  sensation  lasts." 

The  Communist  Party  itself  has  not  participated  in  the  promari- 
huana propaganda  campaign  or  in  the  campaign  to  legalize  mari- 
huana. I  think  it  is  important  to  note,  however,  that  Bettina 
Aptheker,  one  of  the  top  leaders  of  the  Berkeley  uprising  and  an 
identified  Communist,  never  dissociated  herself  from  the  militant  pro- 
pot  propaganda  which  characterized  the  uprising  and  which,  over  a 
period  of  several  months,  raised  the  use  of  pot  on  the  Berkeley 
campus  to  epidemic  proportions.  This,  as  I  have  pointed  out,  was  the 
beginning  of  the  national  epidemic:  from  Berkeley  the  epidemic 
spread  out  to  other  campuses,  then  down  into  the  high  schools  and 
the  junior  high  schools,  and  now  down  into  the  grade  schools  and  up 
into  the  adult  ranks  of  both  the  blue  collar  workers  and  the  middle 
class. 

The  Communist  Party  says  that  it  is  against  the  use  of  marihuana. 
However,  when  Bettina  Aptheker  had  an  opportunity  to  use  her 


230 

immense  prestige  with  the  Berkeley  students  to  speak  out  strongly 
against  marihuana  and  to  oppose  it  at  the  inception  of  the  national 
epidemic — she  failed  to  do  so. 

The  Trotskyists  and  Maoists  have  also  not  participated  in  the  pro- 
marihuana  propaganda,  and,  at  least  in  the  case  of  the  Trotskyists— 
I  do  not  know  about  the  Maoists — are  on  record  as  opposing  the  use 
of  the  drug. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  however,  that  when  the  Communists, 
Trotskyists,  and  Maoists,  cooperating  despite  their  differences, 
brought  hundreds  of  thousands  of  young  people  to  Washington  to 
protest  against  the  Vietnam  war,  the  air  of  the  greater  Washington 
area  was  heavy  with  pot  smoke  for  the  duration  of  the  demonstra- 
tion. There  is  no  record  of  any  spokesman  for  the  major  Old  Left 
organizations  using  his  command  position  in  the  demonstration  to 
discourage  the  use  of  pot.  And  one  is  compelled  to  ask :  Why  ? 

In  his  testimony  last  Friday,  Dr.  Andrew  Malcolm,  a  Toronto 
psychiatrist,  told  the  subcommittee  that  marihuana  makes  people  far 
more  suggestible  and  therefore  far  more  open  to  manipulation.  This 
coincides  with  my  own  experience  with  some  1,600  marihuana  smokers 
over  an  11 -year  period.  I  am  convinced  that  people  under  the  per- 
sisting influence  of  marihuana  can  be  easily  manipulated  by  dema- 
gogs of  the  extreme  left  or  of  the  extreme  right.  Marihuana  smokers, 
in  short,  would  be  grist  for  the  mill  of  any  future  totalitarian  move- 
ment. Dangerous  political  consequences  may  flow  from  the  fact  that 
we  already  have  in  our  society  a  body  of  some  millions  of  chronic 
users  that  continues  to  grow  in  an  exponential  manner. 

Perhaps  the  role  played  by  pot  in  enhancing  suggestibility  is  the 
reason  why  the  Old  Left  leaders  of  the  anti- Vietnam  demonstrations 
did  nothing  to  discourage  the  use  of  pot  among  the  demonstrators — 
despite  programmatic  statements  which  appear  to  oppose  the  use 
of  pot. 

THE  SCOPE  AND  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  EPIDEMIC 

My  extensive  interviews  with  drug  users  and  with  persons  who 
do  not  use  drugs  permit  some  deductions  about  the  variations  in  the 
population  by  subgroups'  tendencies  to  use  cannabis.  Economic 
status  has  little  to  do  with  these  variations.  Strong  religious  faith, 
whether  Christian,  Jewish,  or  other,  appears  to  give  resistance  to 
the  drug.  Strong  family  ties,  more  frequently  found  in  connection 
with  strong  faith,  also  appear  to  reduce  involvement.  In  my  work 
with  the  black  community,  a  scourge  of  multiple  drug  use  is  already 
evident  as  an  endemic  situation;  special  efforts  may  be  necessary, 
but  such  efforts  are  likely  to  get  community  support.  The  situation 
calls  for  urgent  action ;  the  longer  we  wait,  the  more  difficult  it  will 
be  to  reverse  the  trend. 

With  regard  to  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  there  is  no  com- 
munity free  of  the  problem ;  it  is  now  as  widespread  in  the  rural  as 
in  the  urban  communities.  In  some  respects  the  rural  youth  are  worse 
off  because  no  counterdrug  activities  were  organized  there  since  it 
was  felt  that  these  youngsters  were  not  susceptible  to  the  epidemic; 
but  it  has  simply  reached  these  parts  of  the  country  later.  As  a 
result,  the  harm  from  cannabis  might  be  kept  low  in  rural  areas 
through  prompt  action  because  the  average  length  of  use  of  cannabis 


231 

is  less.  This  is  how  I  stated  the  problem  in  1968  in  a  booklet  that 
had  more  than  1  million  copies  distributed :  "Social  pressures  among 
the  young  to  use  the  dangerous  drugs  are  widespread  and,  unless  the 
trend  is  reversed,  as  much  as  half  of  this  generation  of  young  people 
may  acquire  crippling  drug  addiction  or  habituation."  To  that  state- 
ment we  need  only  add  the  genetic  hazard. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Now,  Senator,  I  have  taken  more  time  than  I  should  have,  but  I 
wish  to  bring  to  your  attention  and  the  attention  of  the  subcommittee 
four  points  that  I  think  are  very  important  for  you  to  consider. 

1.  The  first  step  toward  correction  has  been  attained  with  these 
hearings— the  defining  of  the  problem.  The  summary  papers,  rep- 
resenting nearly  the  full  array  of  scientific  information  on  the  sub- 
ject of  cannabis  abuse  in  the  world,  will  soon  be  in  print.  It  is  im- 
pressive in  the  extent  to  which  all  sources  are  in  agreement. 

There  are  several  examples  of  the  effectiveness  of  accurate  infor- 
mation alone  in  reducing  the  abuse  of  drugs.  Therefore,  the  first 
recommendation  is  to  make  the  findings  of  these  hearings  available 
throughout  the  country  without  delay.  Congress  as  a  whole  or  the 
Senate  should  distribute  the  hearings  at  once  to  local  and  State 
governments  and  to  schools,  colleges,  and  public  libraries. 

2.  It  is  recommended  that  a  special  task  force  on  drug  education 
should  be  appointed  by  the  President,  with  its  members  selected  from 
the  ranks  of  those  scientists  who  have  sought  to  face  up  to  the  prob- 
lem rather  than  to  pretend  that  there  is  no  problem. 

3.  A  working  group  of  experts  should  immediately  plan  and  formu- 
late methods  for  rehabilitating  the  large  numbers  of  drug-using  per- 
sons who  may  seek  rehabilitation  in  response  to  an  intensive  educa- 
tional campaign.  Heavy  cannabis  users  need  approximately  the  same 
degree  of  care  in  becoming  rehabilitated  as  do  narcotic  addicts. 

4.  Somehow,  the  legal  and  organizational  means  must  be  found  to 
counter  the  massive,  unopposed  promarihuana  propaganda  cam- 
paign that  is  still  going  on  in  our  country.  I  suggest  the  Presidential 
appointment  of  a  second  task  force  of  leaders  in  science,  medicine, 
communications,  and  other  appropriate  fields,  to  study  the  prob- 
lem and  to  maintain  a  watchful  view  over  published  materials  and 
broadcasts  so  as  to  detect  propaganda  supporting  drug  use  and  to 
respond  promptly,  factually,  and  forcefully  in  such  instances. 

I  will  close  with  that,  sir. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  concludes  your  statement? 

Professor  Jones.  Yes. 

Mr.  Martin.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  some  questions. 

Senator  Thurmond.  You  may  go  ahead  and  ask  your  questions. 

Mr.  Martin.  As  an  expert  on  radiation,  Professor  Jones,  is  there 
any  observation  you  would  like  to  make  in  connection  with  Dr. 
Axelrod's  work  on  the  retention  of  THC  in  the  brain  and  other  fatty 
tissue  ?  I  ask  this  question  because  Dr.  Axelrod's  research  was,  as  you 
know,  conducted  with  radioactively  tagged  THC. 

Professor  Jones.  I  was  hoping  that  I  would  have  a  chance  to  dis- 
cuss that  privately  with  Dr.  Axelrod,  but  I  suppose  I  might  just  as 
well  engage  in  this  forum. 


232 

I  followed  all  the  radioactive  work,  including  Dr.  Axelrod's  and 
his  colleagues';  and  I  do  know,  however,  that  the  ease  with  which 
radiation  labels  can  be  detected  is  in  part  in  these  techniques  related 
to  how  rapidly  it  moves  into  and  out  of  the  body  tissues. 

I  notice  in  Dr.  Axelrod's  study  and  those  of  others  that  there  is 
still  in  the  order  of  20  to  10  percent  of  THC  labeled  that  is  unac- 
counted for  either  as  THC,  or  some  of  the  immediate  metabolites 
which  still  retains  impactment  in  the  body  well  beyond  a  week.  And, 
although  I  can't  prove  it,  I  can  fit  very  good  models  to  this  which 
suggest  that  this  residue  which  is  retained  in  the  body,  in  the  order 
of  10  to  20  percent,  may  persist  in  the  body  for  a  very,  very  long  time, 
constant  indeed,  such  as  would  be  removed  from  tissues  probably  at 
a  rate  of  about  10  percent  a  month.  And  this  of  course,  the  10  per- 
cent a  month,  would  match  the  loss  of  toxic  symptoms  that  we  see  in 
individuals  that  are  poisoned  by  cannabis. 

Mr.  Martin.  From  your  experience  with  marihuana  users,  Profes- 
sor Jones,  I  want  to  ask  you  a  question  I  asked  all  the  other  psy- 
chiatrists. 

Do  you  regard  the  so-called  amotivational  syndrome  as  a  hypoth- 
esis that  has  yet  to  be  proven,  or  as  a  scientifically  established  fact? 

Professor  Jones.  I  regard  it  as  a  scientific  established  fact  because 
I  have  yet  to  see  a  qualified  observer  that  didn't  see  it  in  marihuana 
users.  I  have  interviewed  1,600  of  them,  and  I  did  see  some  degree  of 
amotivational  syndrome  in  all  of  them,  including  some  of  the  bright- 
est university  students  that  I  have  had.  The  level  of  dosage  that  may 
be  concerned  in  amotivational  syndrome  tends  to  be  in  heavier  doses, 
but  I  still  have  a  number  of  individuals  in  whom  I  can  be  relatively 
certain  from  a  clinical  point  of  view  that  their  use  of  marihuana  has 
been  confined  to  a  few  times  per  month,  and  that  they  can  still  have 
the  amotivational  symptoms.  Now,  it's  difficult  to  know,  because 
behavior  and  brain  function  is  so  complicated,  as  to  what  particular 
change,  or  changes,  the  amotivational  symptom  produces. 

I  would  prefer  to  say  that  I  monitor  probably  in  the  order  of  20 
separate  characteristics  of  brain  functions  in  my  interviews  from  a 
clinical  assessment  point  of  view,  and  that  nearly  all  of  them  show 
some  degree  of  change ;  and  that  there  is  a  difference  in  the  pattern 
from  user  to  user,  depending  upon  dose.  So,  the  great  observation 
that  we  have  from  these  hearings  is  reinforcement  of  that,  that  all 
of  us  who  see  and  carefully  evaluate  cannabis  users  detect  in  them, 
even  when  it's  over,  even  up  to  months  beyond  their  use  of  cannabis, 
residual  effects  on  brain  and  behavioral  functions. 

Mr.  Martin.  Is  this  damage  to  the  brain  reversible,  in  your  opinion? 

Professor  Jones.  Within  my  own  experience  I  cannot  answer  that 
question.  But,  I  have  had  individuals,  students,  whom  I  have  been 
able  to  follow  for  several  years  that,  although  they  have  made  remark- 
able progress  back  towards  being  normal  functional  human  beings, 
they  still  have  some  "kookiness"  about  them  which  would  best  be 
described  as  effects  of  cannabis.  But,  unfortunately  I  didn't  know 
them  before. 

Mr.  Martin.  How  long  do  you  have  to  smoke  marihuana,  and  how 
much  do  you  have  to  smoke  a  week  to  bring  about  that  kind  of 
brain  damage? 

Professor  Jones.  There  is  some  disagreement  among  us  here.  I 
point  out  Dr.  Campbell's  analysis  in  England,  who  did  the  first  study, 


233 

undoubtedly  was  measuring  individuals  that  had  very  great  sensi- 
tivity to  cannabis,  that  there  was  brain  atrophy  and  I  believe  the 
data  that  we  have  because  in  many  ways  the  findings  have  been 
amply  confirmed,  and  confirmed  in  these  hearings,  that  these  indi- 
viduals did  get  brain  atrophy  of  a  significant  kind  in  the  very  areas 
of  the  brain  that  were  predicted  to  be  subject  to  atrophying  from  the 
effects  of  cannabis. 

But  we  still  don't  know  whether  the  average  cannabis  user,  espe- 
cially those  that  seem  to  use  cannabis  with  more  impunity,  might  get 
these  effects.  But,  I  would  prefer  to  think,  at  least  from  the  stand- 
point of  cautioning  individuals  that  anyone  using  cannabis  may  be 
inducing  in  the  brain  some  of  these  things. 

Mr.  Martin.  I  would  ask  you  to  keep  your  answers  as  brief  as 
possible,  Professor  Jones,  because  we  are  running  out  of  time. 

Which  do  you  consider  the  most  dangerous — the  more  dangerous — 
cannabis  or  alcohol  ? 

Professor  Jones.  There  is  no  doubt  that  cannabis  is  many  times 
more  dangerous.  I  have  often  commented  on  that  by  saying,  30  times 
more  dangerous. 

Mr.  Martin.  Could  you  in  1  minute,  or  2  minutes,  tell  us  why? 

Professor  Jones.  You  are  asking  me  to  be  brief.  Well,  the  changes 
to  dependency  occur  in  those  that  become  dependent  30  times  faster 
with  cannabis  than  they  do  with  alcohol.  The  brain  damage  that  we 
see  in  an  alcoholic,  and  its  equivalent  to  cannabis  use,  too;  but  you 
won't  find  among  teenagers,  or  those  in  their  20's,  even  though  they 
are  alcoholics,  the  kind  of  brain  damage  you  see  in  cannabis  users 
who  are  daily,  heavy  cannabis  users ;  and  they  already  have  all  the 
signs  of  advanced  Parkinson's  degeneration  of  the  brain,  and  other 
brain  changes,  too,  of  a  totally  irreversible  nature,  and  are  only  18 
or  19  years  of  age. 

Mr.  Martin.  A  question  that  has  been  raised  is  why  we  don't  have 
widespread  noticeable  effects  of  the  cannabis  epidemic.  The  epidemic 
is  a  big  one ;  cannabis,  as  you  say,  is  very  dangerous  and  destructive 
to  the  body  and  mind.  Wny  is  it  so  difficult  to  perceive  the  conse- 
quences, or  why  do  most  people  have  difficulty  in  perceiving  the 
consequences  ? 

Professor  Jones.  Well,  the  cannabis  user  changes  gradually;  he 
drifts  into  whatever  society  will  support  him.  He  will  remain  at 
home,  supported  by  parents;  mooching  off  relatives,  mooching  off 
friends ;  living  off  charity,  living  off  grants  in  a  college  community, 
or  just  being  a  bum,  or  whatever,  if  he  is  badly  affected.  So,  we  don't 
see  the  individuals  listed  and  categorized  in  our  tabulation  of  diseases. 
And  because  they  have  also,  at  least  not  as  yet,  not  started  dying  with 
a  tremendously  high  death  rate,  although  I  think  that  will  change 
very  rapidly.  But,  there  has  been  little  public  awareness.  The  drug 
user  tends  to  remain  hidden  within  the  population,  that  is  also  true 
of  heroin,  they  are  largely  being  cared  for  at  the  expense  of  middle- 
class  society,  a  terrible  burden  on  those  who  are  still  working  in  the 
parental  class.  But,  the  situation  will  change  markedly  as  the  family 
resources  become  exhausted  and  the  individuals  who  are  now  sup- 
porting them  approach  retirement  age. 

Mr.  Martin.  What  you  are  saying,  I  think,  is  that  this  is  a  very 
insidious  drug,  which  permits  the  user  to  look  relatively  normal,  at 
least  to  the  untrained  observer  that  has  no  way  of  knowing  that  he 


234 

is  a  cannabis  user.  But  he  is  nevertheless  seriously  maimed,  it  has 
reduced  his  ability  to  perform  either  as  a  brain  worker,  or  as  a 
mechanical,  let's  say,  blue  collar  worker. 

Professor  Jones.  Well,  I  don't  think  there  will  be  many  individuals 
who  are  high  class  and  use  cannabis.  And  all  of  us  should  be  worried 
right  now  about  the  fact  that  so  many  medical  students  and  young 
physicians  are  using  cannabis.  I  personally  don't  think  a  cannabis 
user  can  take  responsibility  for  another  person  because  this  part  of 
his  brain  is  missing,  it's  not  connected,  it's  not  working.  He  is  highly 
prone  to  make  errors  in  a  situation  which  is  new.  He  can  carry  out 
routine  things,  but  his  ability  to  function  becomes  worse  and  not 
better.  The  average  person,  especially  in  their  young,  pre-middle  age 
period,  grows  and  mature  noticeably  in  every  passing  year.  The 
cannabis  user  either  remains  stationary  or  regresses  in  mental  powers 
back  to  childhood. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  feel  that  abandoning  the  prohibition  would  have 
a  more  serious  result  than  abandoning  the  prohibition  on  the  use  of 
alcohol  ? 

Professor  Jones.  I  believe  every  time  drugs  are  made  freely  and  j 
legally  available  that  use  increases.  I  have  never  talked  with  anyone,  ] 
including  drug  users,  who  didn't  believe  that  cannabis  use  would  ] 
increase  if  it  was  legalized.  Most  young  people  who  do  not  now  use  j 
drugs  tell  me  the  reason  they  do  not  use  drugs  is  because  it's  illegal.  ] 
And  I  think  many  of  them  now  in  the  near  absence  of  good,  cau-  j 
tionary  information,  would  be  tempted  to  use  cannabis  if  it  was  , 
legalized,  and  it  is  more  likely  that  they  would  be  trapped  in  that  j 
decision  than  getting  enough  wisdom  and  making  an  independent  j 
judgment. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much,  Professor  Jones;  there  are  j 
many  more  questions  I  would  like  to  ask  you,  but  our  time  is  running  j 
out  rapidly.  We  still  have  Mr.  Cowan  to  testify,  and  I  will  have  to  < 
terminate  my  questions. 

Professor  Jones.  I  am  sorry  to  have  cut  into  Mr.  Cowan's  time 
because  I  know  he  has  many  things  to  tell  us. 

Mr.  Martin.  You  cut  into  your  own  time,  too.  Thank  you  very 
much. 

Mr.  Chairman,  may  the  additional  documents  which  Professor  Jones 
offered  for  the  record  be  incorporated  at  the  discretion  of  the  sub- 
committee in  the  appendix  material  ? 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done. 

If  counsel  has  any  further  questions  he  wishes  to  prepare,  and  have 
these  witnesses  respond  to,  if  they  would  kindly  do  that,  those  could 
be  included  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Martin.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Senator  Thurmond.  They  could  be  done  in  writing  and  included 
as  part  of  the  record ;  they  have  already  been  sworn. 

Mr.  Martin.  That  would  simplify  the  matter  greatly,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

[The  following  questions  and  answei'9  were  subsequently  supplied 
for  the  record :] 

Question.  Dr.  Jones,  Dr.  Malcolm  made  the  point  that  marihuana  users  have 
impaired  judgment  under  the  acute  effects  of  marihuana.  Would  you  comment 


235 

on  this  point,  particularly  in  regard  to  your  statement  that  your  observations, 
largely  of  students,  were  made  while  they  were  not  acutely  affected? 

Answer.  I  have  found  that  cannabis  users,  while  not  acutely  intoxicated,  per- 
sistently show  a  pattern  of  undesirably  altered  mental  functions: 

(1)  They  use  non  sequitur  in  speech — that  is,  their  conclusions  do  not  follow 
from  their  premises — and  they  preferentially  accept  non  sequitur  from  others. 

(2)  They  are  easily  induced  into  risky,  impetuous,  and  foolish  behavior,  such 
as  acceptance  of  heroin,  LSD,  other  dangerous  drugs,  and  homosexual  expe- 
riences, which  are  afterwards  regretted. 

(3)  There  is  a  narrowing  of  the  usually  wide  range  of  facial  expressions  that 
reflect  the  complexity  of  thought  formation;  the  habitual  facial  expression 
tends  to  become  a  mask. 

(4)  There  are  gaps  and  abrupt  transitions  in  expressing  their  thoughts. 

(5)  There  is  usually  pallor  of  the  face  and  almost  no  changes  of  color  with 
the  emotions  of  social  discourse ;  blushing  is  reduced  or  absent  altogether. 

(6)  Weakening  of  short-term  memory  often  appears  in  conversations;  sig- 
nificant points  comprehended  early  in  the  conversation  escape  a  few  minutes 
later. 

These  effects  are  probably  less  marked  in  university  students  than  in  other 
cannabis-using  persons  of  the  same  age.  University  students  are  probably  not 
as  indolent  as  the  average  cannabis  user  because  those  most  heavily  affected 
undoubtedly  drop  out  of  college.  Among  the  cannabis-using  students  I  have 
known,  those  with  the  most  severely  depressed  mental  activity  have  indeed  quit 
college.  There  are  also  many  testimonials  of  such  dropouts  who  quit  cannabis 
and  were  able,  after  several  months,  to  return  to  their  former  activities,  in- 
cluding their  studies. 

I  also  have  seen  a  few  relatively  heavy  cannabis  users  who  are  impetuous 
rather  than  repressed  into  inactivity.  From  my  partially  formed  opinion  about 
them,  they  probably  continue  to  function  because  of  superior  intellect.  But  they 
are  still  affected,  showing  the  non  sequitur,  the  masked  face,  pallor,  and  rash 
behavior. 

I  am  concerned  about  cannabis-using  physicians  I  have  seen  among  the  re- 
cent graduates  of  our  medical  schools.  There  are  reports  that  as  many  as  half 
the  medical  students  of  the  last  5  years  have  been  using  cannabis.  Some  of  them 
unquestionably  drop  the  habit  before  they  become  practicing  physicians — but 
many  do  not.  I  have  talked  briefly  with  approximately  40  young  physicians  who 
report  using  cannabis.  At  least  a  quarter  of  them  show  the  physiological 
changes  I  have  described.  They  defend  cannabis  use  by  quoting  the  medical 
pseudoscience — but  they  have  never  examined  the  scientific  studies. 

In  view  of  the  life-and-death  responsibilities  of  physicians,  impairment  of 
their  judgment  by  cannabis  use  must  be  regarded  as  a  major  threat  to  the 
public  welfare. 

Question.  Dr.  Jones,  in  your  testimony  you  state  that  the  number  of  drug 
users  of  each  kind  has  been  increasing  by  approximately  7  percent  per  month 
in  recent  years.  Is  this  intended  as  a  firm  estimate — or  are  you  offering  this 
figure  as  the  median  of  a  range  of  estimates?  I  ask  this  question  because  from 
my  own  reading  of  the  literature,  it  doesn't  appear  that  we  have  sufficient  in- 
formation to  make  a  precise  estimate  possible. 

Answer.  Yes ;  I  should  clarify  my  calculations.  I  have  used  various  rough 
methods  to  measure  the  rate  of  increase  in  drug  users.  The  range  is  5  to  10 
percent  increase  per  month  since  1965.  The  median,  or  average  of  all  of  them 
is  7  percent  per  month.  The  rate  is  similar  if  we  consider  separately  the  users 
of  marihuana,  hashish,  or  opiates,  the  extent  of  barbiturate  or  heroin  addiction, 
the  records  of  drug  arrests,  or  the  quantities  of  drugs  seized  in  illicit  drug 
traffic.  In  May  1974,  my  statistics  on  University  of  California  men  show  that 
15%  of  freshmen,  35%  of  sophomores,  58%  of  juniors,  and  90%  of  seniors  use 
cannabis.  The  year-to-year  increase  turns  out  to  be  exponential — like  compound 
interest — but  the  rate  depends  on  whether  we  assume  that  the  compounding 
goes  on  only  during  the  nine  months  of  the  school  year  or  throughout  the 
twelve  months  of  the  calendar  year.  The  rate  of  increase  in  percentage  of  can- 
nabis users  during  a  4-year  university  education  is  then  6%  per  month  (as- 
suming 12  months  of  exposure)  or  8%  per  month  (assuming  9  months  of 
exposure). 

Question.  When  you  say  that  the  epidemic  has  been  spreading  at  an  average 


236 

rate  of  7  percent  per  month  and  that  this  rate  is  exponential — wouldn't  such  a  I 
rate  of  increase  completely  saturate  our  society  in  just  a  few  years  time?  ' 
Wouldn't  there  have  to  be  a  leveling  off  somewhere  along  the  line? 

Answer.  You  are  quite  right.  The  7  percent  figure  is  characteristic  of  an  epi-  i 
demic  at  the  height  of  its  spread,  when  there  is  still  a  large  susceptible  popula-  j 
tion.  This  is  where  we  stand  with  the  marihuana  epidemic  today.  Obviously,  it 
can't  go  on  at  this  rate  indefinitely.  Even  if  nothing  is  done,  somewhere  along 
the  line  it  has  to  level  off,  because  the  susceptible  population  categories  have 
been  saturated.  If  nothing  is  done  to  bring  it  under  control,  however,  the  epi- 
demic is  going  to  level  off  at  very  high  point.  With  a  concerted  campaign,  we  can 
get  the  curve  to  level  off  sooner,  and  then,  hopefully,  turn  it  downwards. 

Question.  The  subcommittee  has  received  testimony  suggesting  that  marihuana 
must  be  regarded  as  a  kind  of  universal  threshold  drug  which  frequently  leads 
to  the  use  of  other  drugs,  including  the  opiates.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been 
stated  in  the  Shafer  report  and  elsewhere  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  use 
of  marihuana  leads  to  heroin  addiction.  Does  your  own  experience  throw  any 
light  on  this  aspect  of  the  problem? 

Answer.  That  marihuana  does  lead  to  the  use  of  other  drugs  has  been  estab- 
lished by  many  studies.  For  example,  the  Annals  of  Internal  Medicine  for  1970 
carried  a  survey  of  college  students  by  Crompton  and  Brill  which  reported  that 
100  percent  of  heavy  marihuana  smokers  used  other  drugs ;  22  percent  of  those 
who  smoked  marihuana  monthly  used  other  drugs ;  while  no  other  drugs  had 
been  used  by  those  who  never  smoked  marihuana. 

The  assumption  that  cannabis  use  does  not  lead  to  heroin  comes  from  mis- 
leading statements  such  as,  "marihuana  does  not  necessarily  lead  to  the  use  of 
heroin."  As  so  stated,  it  is  true,  for  most  cannabis  users  in  the  United  States 
have  not  taken  up  the  use  of  heroin,  even  occasionally.  It  is  also  true  that  some 
cannabis  users  will  never  use  heroin ;  however,  at  least  half  the  cannabis  users 
are  susceptible  to  the  temptations  and  invitations  to  try  heroin. 

The  association  between  marihuana  and  subsequent  heroin  use  is  indeed  re- 
markably high.  In  my  recent  drug  history  sampling  of  400  college  men,  280  took 
up  use  of  cannabis  in  some  regular  pattern,  and  after  that  40  percent  of  them 
(118  cases)  used  heroin  or  other  opiates  one  or  more  times.  One  hundred  twenty 
had  not  used  cannabis ;  none  had  tried  heroin.  From  interviews  of  soldiers  in 
Vietnam  in  1972,  I  found  the  soldiers  who  smoked  tobacco  cigarettes  were  often 
offered  cigarettes  laced  with  heroin.  The  tobacco  smokers  declined  the  offer  if 
they  did  not  also  use  cannabis.  Not  all  cannabis  smokers  accepted  heroin-laced 
cigarettes,  but  the  majority  did  over  a  period  of  prolonged  contact.  In  the  United 
States  over  the  past  2  to  6  years,  0.5  to  1  million  heroin  addicts  have  come  from 
the  cannabis-using  subpopulation.  This  has  been  estimated  at  30  to  35  million,  of 
which  several  million  use  cannabis  daily ) .  The  transfer  from  cannabis  to  heroin 
addiction  is  approximately  3  percent  per  year,  and  the  transfer  from  cannabis 
use  to  some  heroin  use  is  about  7  percent  per  year  (Use  of  opiates  infrequently 
enough  to  avoid  frank  addiction  is,  at  this  time,  more  widespread  than  addictive 
use). 

In  a  study  of  850  hashish  users  in  Cairo  done  by  Professor  Soueif  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  Egyption  Government  (Soueif,  Bulletin  on  Narcotics  23:  No.  4, 
Oct.-Dec.  1971),  it  was  found  that  the  transfer  to  opium  use  from  hashish  use 
was  3  percent  per  year,  exactly  in  agreement  with  my  findings  in  the  United 
States.  The  graph  submitted  by  Professor  Soueif  when  he  testified  clearly  estab- 
lishes that  the  incidence  of  opiate  use  is  directly  related  to  the  number  of  years 
of  hashish  exposure. 

When  I  stated  to  my  drug  abuse  class  in  April  1973  my  statistical  computation 
that  about  10  percent  (approximately  3  percent  per  year)  of  daily  marihuana 
users  in  the  United  States  have  become  heroin  addicts  in  the  3-year  period  1969- 
1972,  I  was  challenged.  A  group  of  procannabis  students  conducted  a  poll  which 
they  proclaimed,  both  in  advance  and  on  completion  of  their  findings,  to  show 
that  I  was  wrong.  Based  upon  50  percent  returns  from  700  mailed  questionnaires, 
they  showed  2  percent  of  students  to  be  heroin  addicts.  What  they  did  not  reveal 
in  their  press  release  was  that  5  percent  of  the  marihuana  users  or  about  10  per- 
cent of  daily  users  were  heroin  addicts.  Allowing  for  statistical  fluctuations  in 
samplings  of  this  size,  and  for  the  fact  that  heroin  addicts  are  likely  to  drop  out 
of  college,  this  survey  is  a  good  confirmation  of  my  statement  that  about  10  per- 
cent of  daily  marihuana  users  in  the  United  States  as  a  whole  have  become  ad- 
dicted to  heroin. 


237 

When  we  look  at  the  problem  from  the  other  direction,  the  association  between 
heroin  and  prior  cannabis  use  is  even  more  startling.  Most  surveys  of  heroin  users 
show  that  the  prior  use  of  cannabis  is  in  the  range  of  85  percent  to  100  percent. 
In  my  own  studies  of  drug  users,  where  I  employ  the  interview  technique  (which 
I  find  more  reliable  than  the  survey  technique  to  obtain  such  mformation),  the 
percentage  is  close  to  100  percent.  In  102  consecutive  cases  of  heroin-using 
soldiers,  all  had  used  cannabis  regularly  prior  to  taking  up  the  use  of  heroin  In 
367  additional  heroin  addicts  interviewed  by  me  in  the  United  States,  only  4  had 
not  used  cannabis  prior  to  heroin  use.  ..     « 

Another  misleading  statement  often  made  by  the  advocates  for  the  legalization 
of  marihuana,  namely,  that  "all  heroin  users  drank  milk  as  infants"  is  foolish, 
the  assumption  being  that  marihuana  is  no  more  a  stepping  stone  to  heroin  use 
than  is  milk.  We  could  equally  say  "all  heroin  users  were  born."  It  is  true  that 
the  majority  of  heroin  users  undoubtedly  drank  milk  as  infants.  About  100  per- 
cent drank  milk,  and  about  100  percent  have  used  marihuana.  But  from  the  other 
direction,  of  those  born,  or  who  drank  milk,  only  1  percent  use  heron,  while 
the  marihuana  users,  30  to  40  percent  have  tried  heroin— too  high  to  dispute  the 
cause  and  effect  relationship. 

Although  the  nature  of  the  transfer  from  cannabis  to  heroin  (or  to  other 
drugs)  is  not  completely  known,  there  are  some  explainable  reasons  : 

a.  Peer  pressure  and  depressed  good  judgment ; 

b.  Desire  for  increased  senusual  effects  ; 

c.  Suppression  of  judgment  brought  about  by  chronic  use  of  cannabis ; 

d.  Crosstolerance. 

Although  medical  texts  cite  there  is  no  evidence  of  crosstolerance  between  can- 
nabis and  opiates  in  humans,  there  are  animal  behavioral  studies  that  show  cross- 
tolerance. Some  degree  of  similar  chemical  action  would  be  expected  because  of 
the  marked  similarity  in  chemical  structure  between  opiates  and  cannabinols.  In 
my  studies,  daily  users  who  have  transferred  to  heroin  use  do  not  show  cannabis 
withdrawal  symptoms  (restlessness,  sleeplessness,  etc.) — indeed  an  indication  of 
crosstolerance.  Crosstolerance,  then,  enables  the  cannabis  user  to  have  increased 
sensual  effects  from  heroin  without  the  unpleasant  withdrawal  symptoms  of 
cannabis. 

From  the  fact  that  some  observers  of  heroin-using  soldiers  reported,  in  1971, 
a  small  fraction  who  began  heroin  use  without  first  using  cannabis,  I  postulated 
that  as  a  larger  fraction  of  soldiers  or  civilians  became  heroin  addicts  and  heroin 
advocates,  there  would  be  more  direct  assumption  of  heroin  taking  without  prior 
use  of  cannabis.  This  has  not  turned  out  to  be  the  case.  In  1971  essentially  all 
heroin  users  first  used  cannabis  ;  they  do  now  also. 

Question.  I  have  another  question  to  ask  with  regard  to  your  estimate  that 
the  number  of  drug  users  of  each  kind  has  been  increasing  by  approximately 
7  percent  per  month  in  recent  years.  There  does  appear  to  have  been  some  re- 
duction in  the  use  of  heroin  and  LSD  over  the  last  two  years,  does  there  not? 

Answer.  That  is  correct.  There  has  been  an  improvement  because  there  has 
been  an  all-out  campaign  of  public  education  by  various  government  agencies, 
which  has  been  completely  supported  by  the  media.  But  there  has  been  no 
comparable  campaign  directed  against  marihuana,  hashish,  amphetamines  or 
other  drugs — and  in  the  case  of  these  drugs,  we  are  still  afflicted  by  a  continu- 
ing monthly  increase  in  their  consumption.  Marihuana  is  perhaps  the  worst  of 
all  because',  as  I  have  pointed  out  in  my  previous  testimony,  there  has  over  the 
past  decade  been  a  massive  campaign  of  deceptive  propaganda  designed  to  make 
potential  users  believe  that  it  is  relatively  innocuous  and  that  it  affords 
pleasures  that  cannot  be  found  with  any  other  drug  or  in  any  other  way. 

Question.  In  observations  on  effects  of  cannabis,  can  you  make  a  further  dis- 
tinction for  us  between  scientific  evidence  and  clinical  evidence  that  marihuana 
is  perhaps  without  harm  at  some  level  of  use?  Do  any  scientists  actually  say 
that,  it  is  safe? 

Answer.  Clinical  evidence  is  derived  from  an  experienced  person's  subjective 
interpretation  of  symptoms  of  health  and  disease,  such  as  subtle  irregularities 
in  the  sound  of  the  heartbeat  or  the  sounds  produced  by  thumping  the  chest. 
Diagnoses  made  scientifically  by  using  the  physical  record  produced  by  the  elec- 
trocardiogram or  the  chest  X  ray  are  more  objective.  A  group  of  physicians 
may  examine  and  discuss  such  a  record  and  come  to  a  consensus  on  the  most 
probable  interpretation.  Thus,  the  scientific  measurement  results  In  a  smaller 


238 

range  of  difference  of  opinion.  In  practice,  both  kinds  of  observations  are 
needed  because  they  do  not  necessarily  measure  the  same  functions. 

In  estimating  the  effects  of  drugs,  behavior  Lnd  mental  functions  are  ex- 
tremely important;  they  are  not  (except  in  rare  instances)  correlated  with 
electroencephalograms,  X  rays,  or  chemical  measurements  of  blood  or  cerebro- 
spinal fluid.  Consequently,  we  have  to  rely  chiefly  on  clinical  evidence  or  soft 
data,  in  contrast  to  hard  data  from  chemical  or  physical  measurements.  In  a 
few  cases,  hard  data  have  confirmed  some  of  our  clinical  observations.  For 
example,  many  of  us  had  concluded  that  there  are  pleasure  centers  in  the  brain 
that  are  somewhat  selectively  affected  by  sensual  drugs.  In  my  published  pa- 
pers I  had  come  to  the  clinical  conclusion  that  cannabis  first  stimulates  and 
then  depresses  the  appreciation  of  pleasure,  and  so  have  Drs.  Kolansky  and 
Moore  and  others.  We  have  used  the  terms,  "sensory  deprivation"  and  "de- 
personalization," in  describing  this  toxic  effect  deduced  from  our  clinical 
studies.  Now,  Dr.  Heath  has  physically  located  the  pleasure  centers  in  humans 
so  that  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  their  existence ;  his  observations  are  hard 
data. 

Most  toxic  substances  appear  to  have  a  threshold  of  dose  below  which  the 
body  can  cope  with  their  harmful  effects  so  that  no  scientific  or  clinical  evi- 
dence of  damage  is  apparent.  A  few  substances,  such  as  salts  of  the  heavy 
metals — for  example,  lead  or  mercury — tend  to  accumulate  in  the  body,  usually 
in  a  specific  organ.  In  that  event,  the  effect  of  continual  exposure  to  small 
doses  is  long  delayed ;  the  damage  may  not  appear  clinically  for  years,  and  it 
has  sometimes  been  difficult  to  associate  the  effect  with  its  cause. 

There  is  hard  scientific  evidence  that  THC  does  accumulate  in  the  brain  and 
is  removed  very  slowly.  This  was  the  subject  of  Dr.  Axelrod's  testimony.  No 
scientist  could  therefore  pronounce  marihuana  "safe"  at  any  level  of  continuous 
use.  The  amount  of  damage  may  be  too  small  to  measure,  but  the  only  valid 
conclusion  from  the  evidence  is  that  some  damage  must  occur  with  persistent 
use  of  marihuana.  There  is  no  process  by  which  science  can  prove  any  sub- 
stance completely  safe ;  it  can  only  report  that  the  known  tests  to  detect  cer- 
tain kinds  of  injury  have  yielded  negative  results.  In  this  case,  the  tests  for 
THC  in  the  brain  gave  positive  rather  than  negative  results,  so  science  cannot 
be  called  upon  to  endorse  marihuana  use. 

Question.  Do  you  think  the  significance  of  Dr.  Axelrod's  work  has  been  ade- 
quately understood? 

Answer.  Let  me  add  to  what  I  have  already  said  on  the  subject  of  Dr.  Axel- 
rod's work.  The  work  of  Dr.  Axelrod  and  his  colleagues*  establishes  the  highly 
significant  point  that  the  active  ingredient  of  cannabis  stays  long  in  the  body. 
In  a  week's  observation  of  human  volunteers  who  were  given  aliquots  of  radio- 
actively  labeled  delta-9  THC,  only  65  to  70%  of  the  material  had  been  elim- 
inated from  the  body  by  the  end  of  one  week.  Of  the  residue  in  the  body,  as 
tested  by  analysis  of  blood  samples,  the  major  fraction  was  still  in  the  form  of 
delta-9  THC  or  its  psychoactive  metabolite  11-hydroxy-THC. 

There  tends  to  be  considerable  misconception  in  the  current  literature  over 
the  significance  of  this  pattern  of  retention.  I  make  the  following  points,  based 
on  analysis  of  the  quantitative  data  reported  by  Axelrod  et  al. 

1.  Although  the  blood  levels  of  THC  decline  during  the  first  few  days  with  a 
half-time  of  1  to  2  days,  the  continued  appearance  of  THC  residues  in  the 
urine  and  the  feces  indicates  that  the  remainder  of  the  THC  has  moved  from 
the  blood  to  storage  in  other  body  reservoirs,  from  which  it  is  removed  with 
half  times  of  one  week  or  longer. 

2.  In  Dr.  Axelrod's  human  studies,  there  was  no  analysis  of  uptake  by  body 
fat  or  in  brain  or  other  organs.  Some  deductions  can  be  made,  however,  from 
the  companion  studies  he  made  on  rats  given  radioactive  delta-9  THC.  The  reser- 
voir of  retention  of  THC  in  the  rat  is  body  fat,  and  the  THC  absorbed  by  the 
fat  is  given  up  slowly.  This  effect  can  be  measured  by  the  uptake  of  THC  in 
fat  under  conditions  of  repeated  administration  of  labeled  THC  and  by  the 
disappearance  from  fat  when  a  single  injection  of  the  drug  is  administered. 
The  nearly  linear  accumulation  of  THC  by  fat  over  a  28-day  period  in  which 


*  Analysis  of  the  Metabolic  Fate  of  delta-9  THC  In  Findings  Reported  by  Dr.  Julius 
Axelrod  and  His  Associates:  Pharmacological  Reviews  S3:  (4)  371-380.  1971;  Science 
170:  1320-1322.  1970  and  179:  391-393,  1973;  Annals  of  the  N.Y.  Acad.  Scl. 
191:  142-154,   1971    (See  Appendix). 


239 

equal  quantities  of  labeled  THC  were  administered  every  other  day,  clearly 
indicates  that  there  is  long-term  retention  of  the  THC  in  fat.  In  these  obser- 
vations in  rats,  it  appears  that  the  fat  releases  THC  with  a  half-time  of  sev- 
eral weeks.  Thus,  the  daily  rate  of  loss  approximates  only  1  to  3%. 

3.  The  slow  release  of  THC  from  fat,  as  observed  in  rats,  tends  to  imply 
similar  retention  of  THC  in  humans  who  smoke  marihuana  and  hashish.  We  can 
expect  that  the  retention  of  THC  in  fatty  tissues  of  humans  is  longer  than  In 
the  rat  because  the  rat's  metabolic  rate  is  about  three  times  greater  than  the 
human  rate.  Thus,  release  of  labeled  THC  from  human  fat  is  likely  to  have  a 
half-time  approximating  a  few  months  rather  than  a  few  weeks  as  in  the  rat. 

4.  It  may  be  a  coincidence  that  the  rate  of  disappearance  of  THC  from  the 
human  body  as  measured  by  appearance  in  the  urine  and  feces  is  approximately 
the  same  as  the  rate  of  disappearance  of  THC  from  the  fat  of  rats. 

5.  In  the  THC  studies,  the  metabolic  processes  most  likely  to  be  detected  are 
those  with  the  fastest  rates  of  turnover,  since  they  produce  the  highest  con- 
centrations of  the  labeled  material.  Thus,  the  data  obtained  by  Axelrod  on  the 
elimination  of  THC  probably  describe  only  the  more  rapid  processes,  while  the 
20  to  30%  residue  of  labeled  THC  is  removed  remarkably  slowly,  requiring 
weeks  for  certain,  and  probably  months,  to  be  eliminated.  The  rate  of  removal 
may,  in  fact,  match  the  slow  regression  of  mental  symptoms  on  abstinence  from 
cannabis  abuse,  which  occurs  at  approximately  10%  reduction  in  symptoms  per 
month. 

6.  The  retention  of  THC  and  its  metabolites  in  brain  tissue  is  an  important 
consideration.  The  Axelrod  observations  show  that  the  rat  brain's  cumulative 
concentration  of  labeled  THC  is  about  5%  that  of  liver  and  1%  that  of  body 
fat  when  THC  was  administered  every  other  day  for  28  days.  Apparently,  most 
of  the  THC  taken  into  the  body  goes  to  body  fat  (perhaps  the  uptake  in  vis- 
ceral organs  depends  on  fat  content)  while  the  brain  gets  a  small  fraction. 
Assuming  that  the  distribution  of  THC  derived  from  smoking  cannabis  is  the 
same  in  humans  as  that  of  injected  THC  in  the  rat  and  that  the  average  ex- 
posure to  THC  through  marihuana  smoking  causes  10  milligrams  to  enter  the 
body,  then  less  than  1%  of  it  would  be  deposited  in  the  brain.  This  would  mean 
that  the  amount  of  THC  or  its  metabolites  that  affects  the  brain  is  indeed 
small,  since  a  dosage  of  0.1  milligram  or  100  micrograms  distributed  to  the 
whole  brain  would  induce  intoxication.  It  also  suggests  that  a  few  hundred 
micrograms  of  the  active  material  held  for  a  long  time  in  the  human  brain  may 
be  responsible  for  the  persistent  effects  associated  with  the  behavioral  changes 
seen  in  chronic  marihuana  users. 

I  wish  to  make  another  statement  of  some  importance  based  upon  the  same 
point,  that  only  a  small  quantity  of  the  active  ingredients  of  marihuana  in- 
jures the  brain.  At  least  one  research  project  in  California  sponsored  by  the 
National  Institutes  of  Health  is  giving  to  human  volunteers  injections  of  sev- 
eral hundred  milligrams  of  pure  delta-9  THC,  also  supplied  by  the  National 
Institutes  of  Health.  These  quantities  in  single  applications,  especially  within 
the  blood  stream,  hazard  real  damage  to  brain  tissue. 

Question.  Dr.  Axelrod  expressed  the  belief  that  marihuana  may  result  in 
"reverse  tolerance,"  and  he  offered  an  explanation  for  this  observation.  From 
your  past  writings,  I  know  that  you  believe  the  concept  of  reverse  tolerance  is 
based  on  erronous  observations.  Could  you  tell  us  why  you  believe  this  con- 
cept to  be  in  error? 

Answer.  Dr.  Axelrod  believes  that  "reverse  tolerance" — that  is,  the  develop- 
ment of  a  given  effect  with  smaller  and  smaller  doses  as  use  of  marihuana 
continues — is  explained  y  the  fact  that,  with  heavy  marihuana  use,  there  is 
increased  enzyme  conversion  of  the  delta  9-THC  to  the  more  active  11-hydroxy- 
THC.  I  have  every  confidence  in  his  work  and  do  not  doubt  that  this  phenom- 
enon plays  a  part  in  the  effects  I  have  observed  in  persons  during  their  initia- 
tion into  marihuana  use. 

From  my  studies  of  cannabis  users,  I  find  that  the  first  few  smokes  of  reefers 
produce  minimal  effects ;  whether  the  person  consumes  4  to  6  all  at  once  or 
over  a  period  of  several  weeks,  he  does  not  "turn  on"  until  about  the  4th  to  the 
6th  "joint."  He  has  now  reached  his  most  sensitive  level  because  of  the  accu- 
mulation of  THC  in  his  system,  perhaps  augmented  by  the  conversion  noted  by 
Dr.  Axelrod ;  and,  for  the  next  few  times,  he  may  renew  the  high  by  smoking 
just  part  of  a  reefer.  He  is  likely  to  remain  at  that  level  of  tolerance  for  a 


240 

time;  but  later  on,  he  finds  it  necessary  to  increase  the  dosage,  and  usually 
the  frequency  also,  in  order  to  get  the  same  effect.  I  interpret  these  observations 
to  mean  that  THC  accumulation  is  the  chief  cause  of  the  seeming  "reverse 
tolerance"  that  brand  new  users  display,  but  that  the  habitual  user  eventually 
experiences  true  tolerance— the  need  for  larger  amounts  of  the  drug  to  produce 
the  desired,  effect. 

Qustion.  Dr.  Jones,  you  were  also  present  when  Dr.  Kolodny  testified  last 
Thursday  on  research  conducted  by  a  group  of  Masters  &  Johnson  scientists 
under  his  direction,  which  revealed  lowered  male  hormone  levels  in  marihuana 
smokers?  As  a  scientist  who  has  studied  the  physiological  effects  of  cannabis, 
do  you  have  any  reservations  about  this  finding? 

Answer.  Dr.  Kolodny's  discovery  is,  in  my  opinion,  of  the  greatest  signifi- 
cance. I  found  his  research  methodology  impeccable,  and,  although  he  was 
properly  modest  about  the  finality  of  his  findings,  I  personally  believe  that  they 
already  have  the  quality  of  hard  scientific  evidence.  I  might  point  out  that  four 
years  ago,  I  hypothesized  that  marihuana  users  had  less  than  usual  male  hor- 
mone because  they  appeared  less  virile  and  had  less  sexual  activity.  I  applied 
for  an  NIH  grant  to  test  the  hormone  profiles  in  persons  at  various  stages  of 
involvement  with  cannabis  or  other  drugs,  or  abstinence  from  them.  The  NIH 
study  section  disapproved  the  application.  Dr.  Kolodny  now  shows  unequivocal 
evidence  for  the  suppression  of  male  hormone  in  men  who  smoke  marihuana. 
Despite  this,  I  anticipate  that  his  findings  will  be  misunderstood  by  some  and 
denied  or  misrepresented  by  others. 

Question.  Could  you  tell  me  why  you  believe  that  these  findings  can  be  mis- 
understood or  misrepresented  or  denied,  when  you  yourself  consider  the  evi- 
dence to  have  a  hard  scientific  quality? 

Answer.  This  wouldn't  be  the  first  time  that  hard  scientific  evidence  has  been 
misunderstood  or  denied.  In  this  specific  case,  there  are  a  number  of  reasons 
that  make  misunderstandings  understandable. 

First  of  all,  based  on  my  observations  of  some  1600  cannabis  smokers,  I  have 
found  that  feminization  in  appearance  and  behavior  is  only  evident  in  about 
half  of  male  cannabis  users. 

Second,  in  my  opinion,  signs  of  suppressed  masculinity  are  most  marked  in 
those  who  are  physically  inactive.  I  find,  obversely,  much  less  behavioral  basis 
for  suspecting  depressed  virility  in  athletes  using  cannabis,  even  though  they 
may  have  other  signs  of  functional  brain  changes. 

Third,  Dr.  Kolodny  has  matched  sexual  impairment  with  suppression  of  male 
hormones  in  cannabis  users.  In  my  opinion,  it  will  be  equally  possible  to  show 
in  marihuana-smoking  males,  selected  as  fully  masculine  types  having  normal 
sexual  inclinations,  that  testosterone  levels  are  in  the  normal  range.  I  believe, 
therefore,  that  we  will  observe  a  false  dispute  of  the  highly  important  Kolodny 
findings  simply  because  it  will  be  easy  to  pre-select  subjects  not  yet  sexually 
debilitated  by  their  use  of  cannabis.  But  the  fact  that  you  can  find  X  number  of 
marihuana-smoking  males  who  have  not  yet  been  sexually  debilitated  does  not 
disprove  the  finding  that  an  equal,  or  substantially  larger,  percentage  have 
suffered  sexual  impairment  in  varying  degrees. 

I  personally  confirm  the  Kolodny  observation  and  caution  those  who  would 
dispute  it  that  we  are  evaluating  a  drug  with  a  very  wide  range  of  patterns 
of  debilitating  effects. 

Question.  Some  of  the  psychiatrists  who  testified  said  that  cannabis  makes 
people  suggestible,  that  it  has  an  almost  hypnotic  effect.  Does  this  coincide 
with  your  own  experience? 

Answer.  Cannabis  does  have  hypnotic  effects.  A  symptom  of  this  action  is 
the  "stoned  thinking"  of  the  marihuana  smoker.  What  is  not  fully  realized  is 
that  this  condition  persists,  though  at  a  reduced  level,  between  uses  of  the  drug. 
Stoned  thinking  is  described  as  use  of  the  non  sequitur,  thoughts  and  deductions 
not  fully  logical  but  accepted  as  logical  by  the  cannabis  users.  One  such  person 
is  pleased  to  note  the  non  sequiturs  in  the  speech  of  another ;  it  is  what  the 
"pot"  user  calls  good  "vibes"  and  the  like.  The  reinforcement  of  the  foolish 
notions  offered  by  one  cannabis  user,  reflected  upon  and  echoed  by  his  peers  who 
share  the  same  vibes,  is  similar  to  the  impetuous  acts  of  gangs  of  juvenile 
persons — act  now ;  don't  worry  about  the  consequences.  Examples  include  the 
minor  rip-offs  (which  is  to  say,  stealing)  of  what  is  wanted  at  the  moment, 
without  restraint,  or  the  breaking  of  faucets  and  plumbing  in  public  lavatories 
or  the  urinating  on  the  floor.  Why?  The  answer  is:  Why  not? 


241 

The  cannabis  user,  as  a  soldier  in  Vietnam,  would  accept  heroin-laced  ciga- 
rettes ;  whereas,  the  other  cigarette-smoking  soldiers  would  not.  This  can  hap- 
pen during  a  cannabis  high,  but  it  is  more  likely  to  occur  when  the  cannabis 
user  is  sober.  Tragic  episodes  of  foolish  criminal  behavior  of  U.S.  soldiers  in 
Vietnam  should  be  investigated  in  light  of  possible  ties  to  cannabis  toxicity. 

Marihuana  users  are  likely  to  make  impetuous  sexual  decisons.  I  first  thought 
that  these  were  confined  to  the  period  of  cannabis  intoxication,  but  my  inter- 
views produced  evidence  that  this  generally  occurs  when  the  cannabis  user  is 
between  highs.  I  have  talked  to  many  cannabis  users  who  consented  to  the 
propositions  of  homosexuals  who  had  picked  them  up  from  the  roadside  as 
hitch-hikers.  These  young  men  are  likely  to  be  troubled  by  these  experiences. 
Three  such  men,  after  having  abstained  from  cannabis  for  several  months, 
stated  that  they  were  then  able  to  see  that  they  had  acted  under  the  spell  of 
cannabis  and  they  would  not  have  been  vulnerable  had  it  not  been  for  the 
suppression  of  mental  powers  that  they  now  could  relate  to  cannabis  use. 

The  hypnotic  spell  of  cannabis  facilitates  and  probably  induces  appeal  of  the 
absurd.  A  century  ago,  the  French  scientist,  Moreau,  recognized  this  tendency 
in  hashish  users  and  called  it  "alienation,"  a  term  appropriately  used  today  to 
describe  persons  altered  by  "cannabis. 

Question.  Have  you  read  the  Third  Annual  Report  to  the  U.S.  Congress  from 
the  Secretary  of  Health,  Education,  and  Welfare  for  1973  on  the  subject  of 
"Marihuana  and  Health"? 

Answer.  Yes,  I  have  read  the  report  and  studied  the  findings. 

Question.  Some  people  associated  with  the  marihuana  legalization  lobby  have 
made  the  point  that  the  1973  HEW  report  on  marihuana  roughly  parallels, 
and  therefore  appears  to  bear  out,  the  findings  made  by  the  Shafer  Commission 
in  its  own  report.  Would  you  consider  this  an  accurate  assessment  of  the  HEW 
1973  report  on  "Marihuana  and  Health"?  Or  are  there,  in  your  opinion,  im- 
portant differences  between  the  two  documents? 

Answer.  Regrettably,  thhe  differences  are  minor  and  the  similarities  great. 

Question.  Would  you  be  prepared  to  offer  your  assessment  of  the  HEW  re- 
port, based  on  your  study  of  it  to  date? 

Answer.  Let  me  begin  by  saying  I  consider  it  a  very  biased  document.  It  ig- 
nores much  of  the  scientific  evidence  against  marihuana  and  distorts  the  mean- 
ing of  some  of  the  studies  that  it  cites.  These  were  faults  of  the  First  and  Sec- 
ond Annual  Reports,  also.  All  three  compare  very  unfavorably  with  the  com- 
prehensive and  accurate  report  on  Smoking  and  Health  published  by  the  De- 
partment in  1964 ;  these  are  neither  comprehensive  nor  accurate. 

Though  the  Report  is  supposedly  directed  "to  the  basic  question :  What  are 
the  health  implications  of  marihuana  use  for  the  American  people?",  it  is  ac- 
tually oriented  primarily  to  matters  of  social  acceptability  and  the  relationships 
of  social  class  to  marihuana  use.  The  one-page  "Summary",  having  stated  "the 
basic  question",  does  not  mention  health  again.  It  speaks  of  "social  patterns 
of  typical  use",  "the  user's  self  concept",  "the  cultural  context"  of  use,  and  the 
"personal  values"  of  the  user,  and  states  that  "ascribed  characteristics  of 
users  [may]  represent  .  .  .  the  institutionalized  prejudices  of  those  of  higher 
social  status."  There  is  no  mention  in  the  Summary  of  the  scientific  evidence 
of  organic  and  functional  damage  to  the  brain,  or  of  damage  to  the  hormonal 
system  or  to  chromosomes.  A  reader  of  this  abbreviated  "Summary"  would 
conclude  that  marihuana  has  no  effect  on  health.  The  rest  of  the  Summary 
section  does  treat  issues  of  health  but  from  a  biased  viewpoint. 

Parts  of  the  Report  seem  like  a  sharp  lawyer's  defense  of  marihuana.  In 
playing  down  the  seriousness  of  the  problem,  for  example,  the  Report  states 
(p.  5)  :  "The  rate  of  increase  [of  cannabis  use]  in  some  segments  of  the  pop- 
ulation may  have  diminished."  Many  readers  would  gain  the  impression  that 
use  has  diminished  rather  than  that  the  increase  in  use  may  be  somewhat 
slower  than  formerly — that  the  use  of  marihuana  is  definitely  increasing. 

With  regard  to  the  linkage  between  cannabis  and  LSD  or  heroin,  the  Report 
is  incorrect.  I  disagree  with  the  statement,  "Heroin  use  in  this  group  [college 
students]  is  extremely  uncommon."  My  studies  have  found  that  20%  of  the 
cannabis  users  in  the  university  population  that  I  have  studied  have  tried 
heroin.  Very  few  of  them  have  become  addicts  and,  as  I  pointed  out  in  answer 
to  a  previous  question,  those  who  become  addicted  drop  out  of  college ;  but  I 
believe  that  the  statement  in  the  Report  is  misleading,  since  I  regard  even  one 


242 

or  two  trials  as  dangerous  "heroin  use".  It  is  that  process  by  which  a  fraction 
of  marihuana  users  become  heroin  addicts. 

With  regard  to  the  use  of  cannabis  by  physicians  and  medical  students,  the 
Report  complacently  states :  "Only  seven  percent  [of  physicians]  reported  cur- 
rent use  [of  cannabis]  and,  as  expected,  younger  physicians  and  those  living  in 
New  York  City  and  San  Francisco  were  more  frequent  users  than  those  in  the 
other  areas."  This  is,  in  fact,  alarming ;  for  the  effects  of  cannabis  in  persist- 
ently depressing  memory  and  other  mental  functions  can  be  expected  to  dimin- 
ish the  quality  of  performance  of  physicians.  If  seven  percent  of  all  physicians 
now  use  cannabis,  while  the  use  is  "more  frequent"  among  the  younger  ones, 
then  the  fraction  of  young  physicians  using  the  drug  is  large.  Some  surveys 
suggest  that  50%  of  medical  students  smoke  marihuana.  The  Report  cites  a 
study  with  only  50%  response  that  showed  one  third  of  a  group  of  physicians 
had  tried  marihuana,  and  one  might  suspect  a  higher  fraction  among  the  non- 
respondents.  The  report  minimizes  the  importance  of  this  aspect  of  the  problem. 
The  Report  dismisses  the  studies  conducted  by  Professor  Soueif  for  the 
Egyptian  Government  in  two  short  paragraphs.  It  fails  to  recognize  the  great 
significance  of  this  work.  These  studies  were  carefully  controlled ;  they  focused 
on  the  persistent  effects  of  cannabis  and  compared  a  wide  range  of  social  and 
achievement  levels ;  they  were  conducted  when  the  persons  in  the  study  were 
not  acutely  affected  by  cannabis ;  and  they  found  a  striking  result :  the  higher 
the  individual's  original  mental  test  scores,  the  more  they  were  depressed  by 
cannabis  use.  None  of  this  is  mentioned  in  the  body  of  the  Report.  There  seems 
to  be  an  indirect  reference  to  Soueif's  study  in  the  "Introduction,"  but  only 
for  the  purpose  of  belittling  its  importance :  "There  is  significant  new  evidence 
regarding  the  implications  of  long-term  cannabis  use.  However,  much  of  it  is 
based  on  overseas  populations  quite  different  from  an  American  user  popula- 
tion both  in  their  patterns  of  drug  use  and  in  the  demands  their  society  makes 
upon  them.  Moreover,  ours  is  a  society  that  makes  simultaneous  use  of  many 
drugs.  They  are  used  recreationally,  as  self  medication  and  by  prescription." 
It  would  have  been  wise  to  point  out  that  America  probably  demands  higher 
average  levels  of  mental  performance  than  does  the  Egyptian  society  and 
hence  that  the  damaging  effects  of  cannabis  use  in  American  life  must  be 
greater.  And  the  Report  should  not  have  lightly  accepted  the  propagandists' 
cliche,  "recreational  use  of  drugs,"  and  mentioned  it  so  casually  as  a  socially 
accepted  practice.  It  tends  to  make  drug  use  seem  as  "American"  as  going  to  a 
baseball  game  or  eating  apple  pie. 

Although  a  4-page  summary  of  the  Soueif  study  is  finally  presented  in  the 
section  on  "Marihuana  Use  in  Other  Countries,"  I  find  it  does  not  convey  the 
sense  of  the  paper  or  its  significance.  The  text  is  merely  full  of  technical  details 
of  methodology.  It  does  not  even  mention  Soueif's  finding  that  the  probability 
of  hashish  users  becoming  opium  users  was  a  function  of  the  duration  of  their 
exposure  to  hashish. 

The  section  on  "Future  Research  Directions"  is  strong  on  sociological  studies 
but  weak  on  the  biomedical  side.  It  fails  to  emphasize  the  importance  of  inves- 
tigating the  extent  of  persistent  effects  of  marihuana  on  mental  function  and 
possible  brain  damage.  The  decreased  educability  of  chronic  marijuana  users 
has  been  observed,  but  further  research  into  its  causes  and  cure  is  essential. 
The  Report  seems  to  regard  the  genetic  and  embryonic  effects  of  marihuana  as 
a  closed  book,  since  no  recommendation  for  future  research  on  that  aspect  is 
offered.  I  believe  there  is  enough  evidence  to  call  for  a  more  extensive  investi- 
gation of  that  effect. 

Like  the  Shafer  report,  HEW's  1973  report  on  "Marihuana  and  Health"  con- 
tains some  impressive  cautionary  material  in  the  larger  text — which  is  some- 
how completely  ignored  in  the  summary  of  findings.  For  example,  the  HEW 
report,  under  metabolic  effects,  makes  this  statement: 

"By  using  whole-body  autoradiography  and  measurement  of  radiolabeled 
drugs  in  isolated  tissues,  it  has  been  unequivocally  shown  that  THC  penetrates 
the  placental  barrier  and  accumulates  in  the  fetus.  ...  At  high  doses,  the  fetal 
levels  become  high  enough,  however,  to  cause  embryonic  and  fetal  deaths." 

This  sounds  pretty  impressive — however,  none  of  this  is  reflected  in  either 
the  two-page  introduction  or  the  six-page  summary,  which  is  what  most  people 
read  and  credit. 

In  other  cases,  the  report  glosses  over  recent  research  conducted  by  respon- 
sible scientists  in  the  United  States  and  abroad — or  seeks  to  refute  this  re- 


243 

search  by  repeated  references  to  the  utterly  worthless  study  conducted,  under 
an  NIMH  grant,  by  a  few  Jamaican  scientists  of  limited  credentials. 

While  the  report  does  make  a  brief  reference  to  the  research  conducted  by 
Dr.  Stenchever  and  his  colleagues  at  the  University  of  Utah,  which  established 
that  marihuana  smokers,  even  at  the  rate  of  one  cigarette  a  week,  displayed 
three  times  as  many  chromosome  abnormalities  as  non-smokers,  it  dismisses 
this  extremely  well-controlled  study  with  the  following  words : 

"There  is  no  convincing  evidence  that  chromosomal  abnormalities  arise  from 
marihuana  use.  The  Jamaican  study  of  chronic  users  as  well  as  other  studies 
of  the  effects  of  THC  on  chromosomes  in  human  lymphocytes  (a  type  of  white 
blood  cell)  indicate  no  changes  related  to  cannabis  use." 

The  report  also  completely  ignored  the  most  impressive  neurophysiological 
studies  yet  conducted  on  the  human  brain  and  the  brains  of  monkeys  which 
produced  electroencephalographic  recordings  demonstrating  massive  abnormal- 
ities in  the  brains  of  cannabis  smokers,  and  persisting  abnormalities  after  rel- 
atively brief  periods  of  chronic  use.  This  testimony  was  presented  to  your 
Subcommittee  last  Thursday  by  Dr.  Robert  Heath,  Chairman  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Psychiatry  and  Neurology  at  Tulane  University.  Again,  the  worthless 
Jamaican  study  is  invoked  as  the  supreme  authority.  This  is  what  the  report 
says : 

"Systematic  study  of  brain  electrical  activity  (EEG  records)  in  matched 
user-nonuser  populations  in  both  Jamaica  and  Greece  have  not  disclosed  ab- 
normalities associated  with  cannabis  use." 

Perhaps  not  very  surprisingly,  the  report  fails  to  conclude  that  we  are  con- 
fronted with  a  national  cannabis  epidemic  of  a  gravity  that  calls  for  an  all-out 
effort  of  public  education  by  the  various  federal,  state  and  local  agencies  con- 
cerned with  the  problem  of  drug  abuse.  Without  such  a  campaign,  needless  to 
say,  it's  going  to  be  impossible  to  turn  the  situation  around. 

Despite  the  fact  that  it  contains  much  solid  scientific  information,  therefore, 
I  would  have  to  state,  bluntly,  that  in  my  opinion  those  who  compiled  the  re- 
port for  the  Secretary  of  HEW  have  been  guilty  not  only  of  professional  in- 
competence but  of  a  major  disservice  to  the  people  of  the  United  States. 

Question.  You  have  spoken  in  a  highly  critical — I  might  say  bitterly  criti- 
cal— manner  about  the  Jamaican  study  which  was  quoted  by  the  HEW  report. 
Do  you  really  think  this  study  has  had  any  serious  impact  on  public  under- 
standing in  this  country  of  the  dangers  of  cannabis  use? 

Answer.  Let  me  first  quote  from  an  official  paper  on  this  research : 

"Twenty-seven  cultures  from  12  users  and  15  controls  failed  to  produce  ade- 
quate results  for  analysis.  Either  there  was  complete  failure  of  mitotic  activ- 
ity or  the  quality  of  the  cells  was  inadequate  for  examination.  Part  of  this 
high  failure  rate  was  clue  to  a  bad  batch  of  calf  serum  used  in  our  culture 
medium.  It  is  not  known  without  repeating  the  examinations  whether  this  was 
the  only  factor." 

The  above  difficulties,  acknowledged  by  the  Jamaican  study,  invalidates  the 
observations.  For  one  thing,  12  users  and  15  controls  amounts  to  a  large  frac- 
tion of  the  study ;  for  another,  the  admitted  difficulty  suggests  that  cell  cultures 
in  the  defective  medium  appearing  to  have  some  degree  of  mitotic  activity  or 
"reasonably  normal"  cell  appearance  were  accepted  as  part  of  the  study.  This 
kind  of  research  difficulty  would  not  be  acceptable  by  experts  in  the  field  of 
chromosome  studies ;  indeed,  they  would  not  have  conducted  any  such  study 
without  being  certain  of  the  culture  media  and  all  other  aspects  of  the  test 
conditions  determining  the  validity  and  the  reproducibility  of  the  results. 

I  believe  tbat  the  Jamacian  study — precisely  because  it  was  funded  by  NIMH 
and  has  now  been  given  the  apparent  blessing  of  HEW — has  already  had  a 
tremendous  negative  impact  in  the  United  States.  It  is  being  quoted  over  and 
over  again  by  all  those  who  are  lobbying  for  the  legalizatoin  of  marihuana.  This 
would  be  bad  enough.  But  the  damage  was  compounded  by  an  article  in  the 
popular  medical  weekly,  Medical  Tribune,  in  October  of  last  year.  I  have  brought 
a  copy  of  it  here  with  me. 

The  heading  of  the  article  reads,  "Study  of  Chronic  Use  of  Marihuana  Dem- 
onstrates No  Chromosome  Breaks,  Brain  Damage,  or  Untoward  Effects."  Then 
the  article  says,  I  quote : 

"A  double-blind  clinical  study  of  the  effects  of  marihuana  in  a  sample  of  a 
population  long  habituated  to  its  use  has  yielded  no  evidence  of  significant 


2M 

physiologic   or   psychoneurotic   differences    between   smokers  and   a   control 
group  of  nonsmokers.  .  .  . 

"The  results  of  this  investigation  appear  to  lay  at  rest  many  common  beliefs 
about  the  deleterious  effects  of  marihuana — beliefs  based  on  laboratory  obser- 
vations (or  anecdotes)  of  acute  effects  in  haphazardly  collected  groups  of 
study  subjects,  without  regard  for  idiosyncratic  physiologic  differences  or  be- 
havioral or  sociologic  background.  .  .  . 

"Abnormalities  found  in  chromosome  studies  of  peripheral  blood  cultures 
were  slightly  more  frequent  in  the  nonsmoker  controls." 

The  article  in  Medical  Tribune,  not  very  surprisingly,  was  widely  picked  up 
around  the  country.  An  article  in  the  Detroit  Free  Press,  for  example,  carried 
a  five-column  head :  "Study  Finds  Marihuana  Not  Harmful."  Since  I  have  al- 
ready quoted  from  this  article,  I  shall  not  repeat  myself — apart  from  empha- 
sizing that  the  article  was  not  speaking  of  the  occasional  use  of  marihuana  but 
of  the  chronic  use  of  marihuana  having  no  apparent  harmful  effects. 

For  these  reasons,  I  believe  that  the  Jamaican  study  has  done  tremendous 
damage  to  the  cause  of  public  education,  and  that  the  emphasis  placed  on  this 
document  by  the  recent  HEW  report  has  given  major  support  to  the  pro- 
marihuana  lobby  in  this  country. 

Question.  Dr.  Jones,  how  is  your  scientific  research  on  drug  abuse  supported? 
Answer.  At  present,  not  at  all.  When  I  first  became  involved,  in  1965,  I  con- 
sidered this  research  a  side  line.  I  read  and  analyzed  the  literature  on  the 
subject  and  began,  in  my  spare  time,  to  interview  and  study  the  characteristics 
and  experiences  of  persons  taking  the  psychoactive  drugs.  In  1967,  I  received 
a  grant  from  the  Carthage  Foundation  for  a  special  study  of  Controversy  in 
Science,  and  they  allowed  me  to  use  a  portion  of  it  for  my  study  of  drug- 
affected  persons.  From  the  beginning,  my  research  was  directed  toward  deter- 
mining long-term  consequences  of  drug  abuse  and  methods  applicable  to  edu- 
cation in  drug  abuse  prevention  and  in  rehabilitation  of  drug-dependent  per- 
sons. Almost  immediately,  I  found  significant  leads  in  these  areas,  warranting 
expansion  of  my  work  into  supportive  laboratory  research  and  clinical  trials. 
Question.  Then  you  did  obtain  funding  to  enlarge  your  studies? 
Answer.  No,  I  did  not.  I  have  tried  repeatedly  to  get  such  funds,  both  by 
formal  application  and  informally,  but  I  was  always  turned  down. 

Question.  Can  you  tell  us  more  fully  about  this  situation  and  whether  you 
have  grant  applications  that  are  now  pending? 

Answer.  Before  answering  your  question,  allow  me  to  state  that  my  appear- 
ance here  as  a  witness  has  nothing  to  do  with  my  disappointment  in  seeking 
Federal  support  and  the  handicap  it  has  been  to  my  work.  I  have  no  grant 
applications  pending  at  this  time  and  I  have  no  plan  to  submit  an  application, 
as  I  will  explain. 

The  funds  from  the  Carthage  Foundation  were  limited.  From  the  beginning 
until  they  expired  last  year,  we  had  agreed  that  I  should  apply  for  Federal 
funds,  since  very  large  sums  were  known  to  be  available  for  drug  abuse  re- 
search and  my  studies  were  so  promising  of  early  practical  results.  When  I  did 
apply,  however,  I  found  the  reviewers  of  my  proposal  were  very  antagonistic, 
and  it  was  no  surprise  to  me  that  my  application  was  rejected.  I  know  that  my 
vocal  and  long-standing  opposition  to  the  "soft  line"  on  marijuana  and  to  the 
methadone  program  for  heroin  addicts  has  not  helped  to  make  me  popular  in 
some  circles. 

Question.  Dr.  Jones,  from  your  continuing  research,  have  you  been  able  to 
make  an  estimate  of  the  extent  of  cannabis  use  in  the  United  States,  and  the 
trend?  Could  you  offer  an  opinion  about  the  information  on  cannabis  seizures 
supplied  by  Mr.  Andrew  C.  Tartagiino  of  the  Drug  Enforcement  Administration? 
Answer.  Most  of  the  data  I  have  been  able  to  collect  indicate  that  the  use  of 
cannabis  is  increasing  at  an  exponential  rate — like  compound  interest — and 
that  the  outlook  for  the  immediate  future  is  further  increase  in  cannabis  use. 
In  my  opinion,  it  will  continue  to  increase  until  the  public  understanding  of  the 
hazards  involved  is  sufficient  to  discourage  the  use  of  marihuana. 

Each  year  of  the  past  decade,  some  authorities  have  stated  that  the  use  of 
drugs  is  declining ;  but  overall,  the  use  of  both  marihuana  and  hashish  has  been 
steadily  on  the  increase.  In  the  first  analysis  I  made  of  this  trend,  in  1968,  I 
used  as  the  quantitative  measure  both  the  number  of  California  juvenile  drug 
offense  arrests  and  the  quantities  of  drugs  seized.  I  believe  the  data  supplied 
by  Mr.  Tartagiino  are  consistent  with  the  present  trend  of  increase  in  numbers 


245 

of  cannabis  users  and  increase  in  quantity  of  cannabis  consumed  by  each  in- 
dividual— both  in  dosage  per  use  and  frequency  of  dosage. 

The  regularity  of  the  tendency  for  the  quantities  of  cannabis  to  increase 
with  passage  of  time,  from  1969  to  1974,  is  impressive.  This  is  what  would  be 
expected  in  a  country  as  large  as  ours,  with  many  agents  working  on  illicit 
drugs  and  with  the  separate  seizures  being  relatively  small  in  comparison  with 
the  aggregate  totals  for  the  year.  I  must  emphasize  the  seriousness  of  the  fact 
that  all  data  I  have  examined  on  the  frequency  of  use  of  cannabis  by  grade- 
school  and  college  students  indicate  a  steady  increase  in  percentage  using  the 
drug,  both  by  age  and  by  grade.  The  Tartaglino  data  are  in  accord  with  these 
observations  and  should  alert  us  to  the  increasing  use  of  cannabis. 

1  have  made  a  continuing  survey  of  marihuana  use  among  UC  students  since 
1968.  On  the  basis  of  my  own  data,  I  have  made  a  graphic  analysis  of  the  trend 
of  the  Tartaglino  data,  as  shown  in  the  graphs  which  I  am  submitting  for  the 
record  at  this  point. 


TABLE  I. 


-ESTIMATIONS  OF  NUMBERS  OF  CANNABIS  USERS  AND  QUANTITIES  OF  THE  DRUG  CONSUMED  (TABLE  OF 
QUANTITIES  OF  THC  CONSUMED  BASED  ON  200  U.C.  MALE  UNDERGRADUATES,  1973) 


Frequency  of  use  per  week 


mg  THC,  estimated 
smoked  per  100  users 


percent         smoked       absorbed       per  week        per  year 


Assumed  dose 
THC:mg/dose 


Estimated 

mgTHC 

smoked  per 

year  per 

person 


7  or  more      4  40  20  1,200  62,400 

6  to  7 6  30  15  1,117  60,840 

4  to  6                      ..                  ....  20  26  13  2,600  135,200 

2  to  4                                     54  20  10  3,230  166,400 

1  to  2*                                         10  16  8  240  12,480 

Less  than  1 6  10  5  30  1,560 

Total U38.880 


15,600 
10, 140 
6,760 
3,081 
1,248 
260 


1  THC  equals  4.39  g  smoked  per  year  per  male  cannabis  user. 

1  Seizures  are  estimated  to  be  between  8  to  12  percent  of  the  contraband.  A  conservative  figure,  therefore,  estimating 
the  total  cannabis  smuggled  is  to  multiply  Federal  seizures  by  a  factor  of  8  (assumes  12  percent  seizure). 

>  This  is  based  on  my  interview  data;  approximately  half  of  cannabis  using  persons  grow  their  own  or  get  their  supply 
from  someone  who  grows  it. 

Note:  Estimated  supplies  of  cannabis,  United  States  1973:  Marijuana  seized  by  Federal  agents,  782,033  lb  at  1.5  percen 
THC  equals  11,730  lb  THC  times  8  '  equals  93,840  lb;  estimating  domestic  production  '  equals  illegal  importation  of  93  840 
lb;  hashish  seized  by  Federal  agents,  52,333  lb  at  10  percent  THC  equals  5,233  lb  THC  times  8  equals  41,864  lb;  total  THC 
consumed  in  1973  equals  229,544  lb;  or  total  THC  consumed  in  1973  equals  104,300  kg. 

Total  users  in  United  States  if  pattern  of  use  is  like  Berkeley,  the  average  male  user  consumes  4.39  g  THC  per  yea  r. 
The  average  female  user  consumes  3.6  g  THC  per  year. 

Ratio,  male  to  female  users  is  2  to  1;  average  user,  male  plus  female,  estimated  to  consume  4.13  g/yr. 
Therefore  104,300,000  g  THC  available  in  United  States  in  1973  divided  by  4.13  g  THC  consumed  per  average  user  is 
25,000,000  users.  Of  these,  10  percent  or  2,500,000  use  cannabis  more  than  6  times  per  week. 

TABLE  II.— DURATION  OF  MARIHUANA  USE,  1973,  U.  C.  MALE  STUDENTS  18-24  YEARS  OLD 


Percent 


Percent 


0 

6  months  or  longer. 

1  year  or  longer 

2  years  or  longer... 

3  years  or  longer... 


42  4  years  or  longer. 

57  5  years  or  longer. 

54  6  years  or  longer. 

44  7  years  or  longer. 

33  8  years  or  longer. 


Note:  Estimated  year  of  onset  of  marihuana  epidemic  in  these  users— January  1966;  average  age  then  14  years  9th 
grade.  This  estimate  is  based  on  a  larger  compilation  of  the  data. 


TABLE  III.— FRACTION  OF  MALE  STUDENTS  REPORTING  RECURRENT  USE  OF  MARIHUANA,  U.C.  1973 


Percent 

Percent 

Freshmen 

58 

90 

246 


1000 


MARIJUANA  AND  HASHISH 

REMOVED  FROM  ILLICIT  MARKET  BY  FEDERAL  AGENTS 

100 


CO 

T3 

C 
D 

o 

Q. 


CO 

c 

CO 
CO 

o 


800- 


600 


200 


400  - 


69      70     71      72     73     74 

Year 


69     70      71      72 

Year 


73     74 


Fig.    1 


Fig.  1. — Pounds  of  cannabis  (marihuana,  A;  hashish,  B)  removed  from  the 
illicit  market  of  the  United  States  by  Federal  agents.  The  information  is  from 
the  statement  before  the  subcommittee  by  Andrew  C.  Tartaglino.  Note  the  ex- 
ponential increase  from  1969  to  1974. 


247 


10,000 


_  Doubling  time  - 
-1.54  yr  =  46%/yr 


FEDERAL 
SEIZURES 


Marijuana  THC 
Hashish  THC 


Millions  of  plants 
seized  in  California 


69     70      71      72     73     74 

Year 


:ig.    2 


Fig.  2. — Kilograms  of  THC  in  the  cannabis  seizures.  Marihuana  is  assumed  to 
contain  1.5%  THC  and  hashish,  10%  THC.  The  quantity  of  THC  is  on  a  loga- 
rithmic scale,  and  a  line  matching  the  most  recent  increase  in  THC  is  drawn  for 
reference.  Its  slope  indicates  a  doubling  time  of  1.5  years,  or  a  rate  of  increase 
of  46%  per  year. 


248 


0 

Fig.    3 



I       i^— — r-H 1 — 

20 

£    40 

0 
o 

CD 

Q-    60 

— 

—                       1 

J  Frequency  of  cannabis  use 

80 

-        /  UC 

ma 

le  students,  1973    " 

-   /     18 

22 

yrs                             - 

100 

x\      I      I 

I      I      I      I      I      I 

0 


2  4  6  8  10 

No.  of  uses  per  week 


12 


Fig.  3. — The   frequency    of  cannabis   use   in   200   marihuana-smoking  under- 
graduates, 1973. 


249 


100,000 


co 

_CD 

'E 

CD 
> 

D 

'c 

i_ 

o 

<■£ 
"(0 

o 

CO 

CO 

CD 
i_ 
k_ 
CD 

CD 
CO 

c 

CD 


10,000  - 


1000 


100  - 


HEROIN 


10 
1960        1962         1964         1966         1968         1970       1972 

*  Drugs  requiring  prescription  but  not  including  narcotics. 

Fig.    4 

Fig.  4.— Analysis  of  drug  abuse  trend  (Jones,  H.B.,  1968).  Based  on  Califor- 
nia juvenile  arrests  for  drug  offenses. 


250 

List  of  Research  Papers  on  Drugs  Offered  for  the  Record  by  Professor  Hardin 
Jones. 

1.  "The  Deception  of  Drugs"  by  Hardin  B.  Jones,  Ph.  D.,  Clinical  Toxicology, 
4(1),  pp.  129-36,  March,  1971. 

2.  "A  Report  on  Drug  Abuse  in  the  Armed  Forces  in  Vietnam"  by  Hardin  B. 
Jones,  Ph.  D.,  Medical  Service  Digest,  August,  1972. 

3.  "A  Study  of  Drug  Abuse  and  Its  Prevention  for  the  Armed  Forces  of  the 
United  States"  by  Hardin  B.  Jones,  Ph.  D.,  and  Helen  C.  Jones.  (A  report  on  a 
worldwide  study  of  drug  abuse  in  the  U.S.  Armed  Forces,  conducted  under  con- 
tract for  the  Department  of  Defense. ) 

4.  "The  Effects  of  Sensual  Drugs  on  Behavior :  Clues  to  the  Function  of  the 
Brain"  by  Hardin  B.  Jones.  (Chapter  8  of  PSYCHOBIOLOGY,  Newton  and 
Riesen,  John  Wiley  and  Sons,  Inc.,  1974.) 

Mr.  Martin.  Our  next  witness  is  Mr.  Keith  Cowan  from  Canada. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Mr.  Cowan,  it  is  good  to  have  you  with  us. 
Will  you  identify  yourself  for  the  record  and  state  your  qualifica- 
tions ? 

TESTIMONY  OF  KEITH  COWAN,  PRINCE  EDWARD  ISLAND,  CANADA 

Mr.  Cowan.  Yes,  sir;  I  am  an  adviser  to  the  government  of  the 
Canadian  province  of  Prince  Edward  Island,  director  of  an  institute 
associated  with  the  University  of  Prince  Edward  Island,  and  a  mem- 
ber of  the  public  drug  education  committee  of  the  department  of 
education.  My  presentation  today  is  made  as  an  individual. 

My  special  interest  lies  in  the  field  of  communications  which  is 
applied  in  my  work  to  the  problems  of  drug  education  and  labor 
relations. 

My  background  includes  a  honor's  premedical  science  degree  from 
McGill  University  in  1940,  and  several  additional  years  of  night  and 
day  university  work  in  the  humanities,  labor  relations  and  commu- 
nications. 

Twenty-five  years  of  work  has  been  spent  in  industry,  the  informa- 
tion media  and  government,  including  8  years  with  the  Economic 
Council  of  Canada  and  the  national  productivity  council,  during 
which  time  I  prepared  a  2-year  study  on  the  "Role  of  Communica- 
tions and  Behavioral  Knowledge"  for  our  National  Commission  on 
Labor  Relations. 

Mr.  Martin.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  Mr.  Cowan  will  have  to  ab- 
breviate his  statement  considerably  in  order  to  get  through  in  the  time 
remaining  to  us.  May  I  suggest  that  the  entire  text  of  his  statement 
be  incorporated  into  the  record  as  though  read. 

Senator  Thurmond.  Without  objection,  that  will  be  done.  Mr. 
Cowan,  your  entire  statement  will  appear  in  the  record  as  you  have  it 
prepared. 

Mr.  Cowan.  Thank  you. 

Senator  Thurmond.  And  then  counsel  will  propound  questions  to 
you  to  bring  out  certain  points,  and  anything  that  you  feel  in  addi- 
tion, if  you  could  do  it. 

When  I  have  to  leave  to  vote  I  will  ask  counsel  just  to  continue  the 
hearing  in  my  absence. 

Mr.  Cowan.  General  interest  in  drug  abuse  issues  began  with  our 
children's  university  years  both  in  the  United  States  and  Canada  in 
the  1960's  when  drugs  on  the  campus  became  a  public  issue  and  a 
natural  concern  of  parents. 


251 

A  special  interest  in  cannabis  started  4  years  ago  when  my  cabinet 
minister,  the  late  Hon.  Elmer  Blanchard,  our  Province's  Minister  of 
both  Labor  and  Justice,  asked  if  I  could  help  him  prepare  a  statement 
to  be  presented  to  our  National  Commission  on  the  Non-Medical  Use 
of  Drugs,  which  is  popularly  known  as  the  Le  Dain  Commission.  The 
Ottawa  government  had  invited  each  provincial  government  to  give 
its  views  at  the  open  hearings  of  the  traveling  commission.  Prince 
Edward  Island  was  the  only  province  which  responded. 

What  began  as  a  request  for  a  "little"  time  has  instead  become  a 
continuous  part  of  my  work  and  concern  to  this  day,  touching  per- 
sons and  organizations  in  several  countries.  My  various  responsibil- 
ities over  several  years  have  permitted  numerous  visits  to  the  United 
States  which  made  direct  personal  contacts  possible  with  administra- 
tors, deans  and  students  at  many  American  universities  and  research 
centers  investigating  cannabis  problems.  This  added  greatly  to  phone 
and  mail  exchanges  and  information  from  literature,  providing  data 
for  my  presentation  today  on  "Cannabis  and  the  Communications 
Gap." 

When  the  poet  suggested  that  "ignorance  is  bliss"  he  could  not  have 
been  aware  of  today's  vast  and,  I  believe,  dangerous  communications 
gap  on  the  subject  of  the  harmful  effects  of  marihuana  and  hashish. 

Evidence  is  mounting  in  Canada  and  the  United  States  that  huge 
numbers  of  youth  at  increasingly  lower  age  levels  in  schools  and 
neighborhoods,  many  young  professionals  and  important  press  and 
other  media  accept  cannabis  as  a  basically  harmless  recreational  drug 
which  should  be  as  available  as  alcohol  or  tobacco.  The  evidence  of 
these  hearings  warns  us  to  the  contrary. 

It  is  clear  from  my  work  that  this  "benign"  image  is  one  of  the 
major  causes  of  the  drug's  wide  acceptance  and  use.  Therefore,  Mr. 
Chairman,  your  subcommittee  of  the  U.S.  Senate  deserves  high  com- 
mendation from  within  and  without  the  United  States  for  bringing 
together  thoroughly  qualified  medical  researchers  from  around  the 
world  to  testify  in  public  hearings  in  order  that  carefully  prepared 
evidence  might  help  to  close  such  a  serious  gap  in  public  knowledge. 

You  have  heard  from  recognized  authorities  at  these  hearings  of 
specific  and  serious  problems  which  arise  from  the  steady  use  of 
marihuana  and  hashish,  such  as  long-term  retention  and  accumula- 
tion of  cell-interfering  chemicals  in  the  fat  cells  of  the  brain  and 
reproductive  organs,  significant  chromosome  breakage  and  DNA 
damage,  serious  immunity  and  hormone  interference,  traffic  dangers, 
reduction  in  the  abilities  of  the  higher  levels  of  the  mind  such  as 
memory,  intellectual  capacity,  coordination,  potential  irreversible 
brain  damage  and  so  on.  Some  of  the  evidence  has  only  become  known 
in  the  last  2  years,  but  strong  warnings  have  been  available  for  many 
years  as  clinicians  had  observed  harmful  effects  without  knowing  the 
how  or  why. 

In  spite  of  such  evidence,  pressures  are  being  exerted  on  Western 
World  governments  to  take  irretrievable  steps  towards  the  legaliza- 
tion of  cannabis  products,  perhaps  more  fiercely  in  the  United  States 
than  anywhere  else.  While  the  governments  of  Great  Britain,  France, 
and  Canada  have  made  firm  decisions  to  hold  the  line  on  any  spread 
of  the  drug  through  heavy  legal  penalties  for  trafficking  and  con- 


252 

tinued  but  reduced  penalties  for  possession,  public  evidence  of  pres- 
sures on  American  State,  civic,  and  Federal  governments  has  given 
Canadians  concerned  with  the  problem,  considerable  anxiety  due  to 
the  lengthy  common  and  friendly  frontiers.  Drug  traffickers  recog- 
nize no  custom  barriers. 

What  gives  these  political  pressures  credence,  is  the  general  com- 
munications gap  particularly  among  the  youth. 

A  few  illustrations  of  this  gap  may  suffice. 

The  most  recent  have  come  to  my  attention  since  arriving  in  Wash- 
ington to  attend  these  hearings.  Two  young  men  visiting  from  De- 
troit, Mich.,  dropped  in  on  the  first  hearing.  Afterward,  one  of 
them,  a  teaching  assistant,  wanted  more  information  since  he  seriously 
questioned  the  evidence  of  harmful  effects  which  he  had  heard  for  the 
first  time.  He  announced  that  he  enthusiastically  supported  the  drive 
to  "decriminalize"  marihuana.  He  said  that  he  had  read  the  National 
Commission  report,  the  books  of  Dr.  Grinspoon  of  Harvard  and  knew 
of  the  work  of  the  organization  called  NORML — National  Organiza- 
tion for  the  Reform  of  Marihuana  Laws. 

"What  evidence  have  you  read  of  the  harmful  effects  of  the  drug?" 
I  asked.  "Well,"  he  said  with  a  puzzled  look,  "I  haven't  read  of  any 
serious  problems."  The  other  youth  did  recall  having  seen  one  item 
about  hormone  damage  in  a  recent  Detroit  newspaper. 

The  almost  closed  mind  of  the  first  youth,  a  teacher  who  had  done 
some  reading  and  research,  and  his  apparent  missionary  enthusiasm 
to  liberalize  the  use  of  cannabis  as  a  harmless  drug  is  a  common 
phenomenon. 

In  the  last  few  days  I  also  met  a  well-educated,  highly  intelligent 
Washington  couple  from  the  business  community,  with  children  in  the 
young  teenage  bracket.  When  I  told  them  of  the  evidence  presented 
to  this  hearing,  they  were  greatly  incensed  because  they  had  not  heard 
of  it  before.  "We  have  been  trying  to  find  out  something  authentic 
about  this  drug  without  success,"  said  the  mother.  She  knew  that  the 
drug  was  being  used  in  the  neighborhood  and  wanted  to  discuss  the 
question  intelligently  with  her  children. 

A  local  university  dean  told  me  last  week  that,  with  virtually  no 
evidence  to  place  against  his  children's  reading  and  the  accepted  belief 
among  their  friends,  he  had  very  great  difficulty  making  a  case  to 
discourage  them  from  using  it. 

A  responsible  Washington  public  official  informed  me  that  he  finds 
the  young  college  person  coming  onto  his  staff  generally  favorable 
to  the  open  use  of  marihuana  and  disdainful  of  any  harmful  effects. 

A  relative  of  mine  from  the  State  of  Washington  reports  that  her 
son's  high  school  teacher  told  the  clas  during  a  drug  education  pro- 
gram that  marihuana  was  the  only  drug  for  which  she  had  no  ade- 
quate information. 

A  quiz  conducted  in  a  Texas  high  school  showed  that  out  of  a  class 
of  25,  only  two  students  believed  that  any  harm  could  come  from  us- 
ing marihuana,  and  neither  of  the  two  could  describe  any  specific 
difficulties. 

Last  year,  a  University  of  Michigan  team  conducted  a  high  school, 
classroom  drug  education  program,  in  which  the  pro's  and  con's  of 
marihuana,  tobacco,  alcohol  and  one  or  two  other  drugs  were  listed 


253 

on  the  board,  side  by  side — without  any  judgment  or  evaluation.  It 
was  found,  however,  that  the  use  of  marihuana  increased  significantly 
following  these  presentations.  I  phoned  the  professor  in  charge,  and 
asked  if  certain  of  the  information  which  has  been  presented  in  this 
hearing  and  was  then  available  had  been  listed  among  the  harmful 
effects  of  marihuana.  "No,"  was  the  reply.  From  the  manner  of  pre- 
sentation, in  my  analysis  students  could  see  no  basic  difference  be- 
tween tobacco,  marihuana  and  alcohol.  And  since  they  themselves 
had  tried  or  were  using  alcohol  and  tobacco,  along  with  most  of  their 
parents,  it  seemed  reasonable  to  use  pot  as  well. 

Discussions  with  a  cross-section  of  people  from  many  parts  of 
Canada  and  the  United  States  over  the  past  3  years,  including  meet- 
ings with  groups  of  students,  confirm  the  impression  that  a  belief  in 
the  essential  harmlessness  of  marihuana  is  a  widespread  viewpoint, 
especially  at  school  and  university  levels. 

Last  month,  I  sat  in  a  gathering  of  Canadian  high  school  students 
from  a  fairly  large  area.  They  were  frank  about  the  growing  use  of 
cannabis  in  'lower  grades  and  the  fact  that  general  opinion  in  the 
schools  favored  the  legalization  of  marihuana  because  it  was  harm- 
less. 

Knowledge  about  this  communications  sickness  was  sharpened  when 
I  recently  met  with  educational  officers  from  Canadian  drug  addiction 
organizations.  When  I  presented  a  summary  of  the  evidence  you  have 
been  hearing,  the  majority  of  those  present  were  either  startled  that 
such  information  existed  or  attacked  the  information  as  inaccurate, 
as  yet  unproven,  or  highly  biased.  A  representative  of  Canada's 
largest  drug  addiction  organization  reported  categorically  that  his 
group  were  "less  concerned"  about  marihuana  and  its  effects  than  they 
had  been  5  years  ago.  The  second  largest  organization  suggested  that 
they  had  never  been  given  any  evidence  to  be  concerned  about  by  the 
universities  upon  whom  they  depended  for  information. 

Even  more  disturbing  is  the  report  from  Canada's  Toronto  Globe 
and  Mail  of  December  21,  1973,  on  a  new  study  conducted  by  the 
Ontario  Addiction  Research  Foundation  which  shows  that  high 
school  teachers  tend  to  be  more  favorable  to  the  legalization  of  mari- 
huana than  students.  The  more  the  person  knows  about  the  drug, 
according  to  this  research,  the  more  permissive  he  or  she  becomes 
and,  of  course,  teachers  had  read  more  than  their  students.  Assum- 
ing some  accuracy  in  this  study,  the  question  we  must  ask — as  I  did 
of  the  youth  from  Detroit— is,  "What  has  been  read  by  the  teachers 
of  this  continent  and  all  the  others  to  produce  such  a  favorable  atti- 
tude to  legalization?" 

During  the  last  3  years,  the  national  press  of  Canada  and,  as  sev- 
eral witnesses  have  reported,  the  U.S.  press  as  well,  has  almost  totally 
emphasized  the  harmlessness  of  cannabis.  Some  encouraging  changes 
have  begun,  however,  in  the  past  6  months,  I  am  pleased  to  report. 

To  illustrate  the  problem,  last  September  25,  Canada's  largest 
newspaper,  the  Toronto  Globe  and  Mail,  ran  a  lead  editorial  on  the 
excuse  of  the  announcement  by  a  Toronto  dentist  who  claimed  that 
regular  marihuana  smoking  seems  to  keep  teeth  clean — so  might  ni- 
tric acid.  The  editorial  totally  exonerated  the  drug  from  causing  any 
medical  problems.  The  real  and  only  harm  came  to  youth  because  of 


33-371   O  -  74  -  18 


254 

breaking  the  law.  And  in  any  case,  the  editors  suggest,  doctors,  law- 
yers, university  professors,  et  al.,  are  now  using  the  drug.  By  infer- 
ence, "let's  get  on  with  it,"  and  smoke  up. 

One  month  earlier,  the  same  paper  carried  a  full-page  review  of 
the  U.S.  Consumers  Union  volume  "Licit  and  Illicit  Drugs"  accom- 
panied by  color  drawings  and  a  headline  entitled,  "Are  Laws  More 
Damaging  Than  Drugs?"  emphasizing,  with  faint  criticism,  the 
book's  theme  and  the  policy  position  of  the  Consumers  Union,  namely, 
that  penalizing  laws  for  all  drugs,  including  heroin,  rather  than  the 
drugs  themselves,  had  caused  the  most  damage  to  society  and  indi- 
viduals. To  the  layman,  says  the  paper,  this  book  is  "most  convincing" 
and  from  a  "long  respected  source,"  adding  that  the  Consumers 
Union  expects  that  the  book  "will  have  a  great  impact  on  public 
policy." 

Again,  on  February  12,  1974,  a  three  column  story  on  cannabis 
research  in  Ottawa  Laboratories  plays  up  a  "research  student's" 
comments — made  while  rolling  a  joint  for  himself — that  he  had  be- 
come convinced  marihuana  was  "less  harmful  than  alcohol  or  ciga- 
rettes" and  should  be  legalized.  More  cautionary  comments  from  the 
professional  researchers  themselves  were  buried  in  following  para- 
graphs. 

A  similar  pattern  is  evident  in  the  American  press.  The  New  York 
Times,  which  has  an  important  Canadian  readership,  used  to  give 
good  space  to  news  critical  about  marihuana.  This  has  almost  stopped 
dead  for  the  past  few  years.  Not  one  word  on  these  hearings,  for 
instance.  While  the  Washington  Star-News  carried  an  excellent  story 
critical  of  cannabis  following  the  opening  day  of  these  hearings, 
nothing  appeared  in  the  Washington  Post  until  2  days  afterward 
when  a  four  column,  well-displayed  story  written  by  Tom  Braden 
appeared  on  the  editorial  page  of  May  11.  Its  title,  "Slow  Progress 
on  the  Marihuana  Front"  was  set  off  by  a  sizable  picture  of  police 
officers  in  a  marihuana  patch.  In  telling  of  changes  in  States  laws  to 
reduce  penalties  for  marihuana  use,  the  article  claimed  that  "no  re- 
spected bod}^  of  opinion  any  longer  holds  that  moderate  consumption 
is  any  more  dangerous  to  the  human  body  than  consumption  of  to- 
bacco or  alcohol" — a  fallacy  that  is  contradicted  by  the  evidence  pre- 
sented at  these  hearings. 

Nothing  appeared  about  the  evidence  from  the  hearings  during  the 
next  few  days  in  the  Post,  even  though  one  of  its  writers  had  tried 
to  contact  one  of  the  witnesses  by  long  distance  phone  before  he  came 
to  Washington.  The  Post  of  May  17,  which  came  immediately  after 
the  revelation  before  this  committee  of  the  high  probability  of  brain 
damage  and  cancer  resulting  from  pot  use,  not  only  carried  no  story, 
but  carried  six  other  well-displayed  items  on  health  and  drugs,  cov- 
ering about  140  column  inches. 

The  Washington  Post  has  a  great  impact  outside  your  country 
because  it  is  quoted  extensively  in  other  papers.  Intelligent  readers 
in  other  countries  rely  heavily  on  quotes  from  the  Post  for  informa- 
tion about  the  United  States.  The  Post  also  commands  special  interest 
because  of  its  reputation  as  a  paper  which  is  continually  attacking 
coverups,  or  what  it  believes  to  be  coverups.  The  Post  has  the  right, 
of  course,  to  publish  Mr.  Braden's  profoundly  mistaken  column  on 


255 

marihuana — even  though  columns  like  this  encourage  young  people 
to  experiment  with  pot  and  then  go  on  to  become  regular  users.  But 
was  the  Post  not  guilty  of  the  kind  of  coverup  it  denounces  so  reg- 
ularly when  it  decided — and  it  could  only  have  been  a  deliberate  de- 
cision— not  to  report  on  these  hearings?  Their  decision  to  ignore  the 
hearings  was  all  the  more  difficult  to  understand  because  of  the  inter- 
national eminence  of  the  scientists  who  testified,  because  of  the  news- 
worthiness  and  public  importance  of  the  research  on  which  they  re- 
ported, and  because  of  widespread  public  and  family  concern  over 
the  issue. 

Hopefully,  the  publishers  and  editors  of  the  Post  will  reconsider 
their  attitude,  and  will  take  the  time  to  examine  the  scientific  findings 
on  cannabis  presented  to  the  subcommitee  and  then  make  this  infor- 
mation available  to  their  readers.  This  is  something  that  their  read- 
ers have  the  right  to  know. 

The  sad  truth  is  that  highly  important  and  cautionary  evidence 
has  been  available  for  years  in  the  literature  and  in  the  experience 
of  prominent  medical  men  who  have  treated  cannabis  habitues.  But 
it  has  not  reached  our  youth  and  the  public  in  any  effective  way  as 
yet.  Neither  the  United  States  nor  the  Canadian  national  commis- 
sions have  succeeded  in  this  vital  educational  job.  In  the  United 
States,  the  report  of  the  National  Commission  on  Marihuana  has 
been  interpreted  as  providing  a  green  light  to  the  eventual  legaliza- 
tion of  the  drug.  In  Canada,  the  Le  Dain  Commission's  final  cannabis 
report  contains  important  cautionary  material,  but,  perhaps  due  to 
the  Commission's  split  decision,  it  has  not  deterred  large  numbers  of 
Canadians  from  believing  otherwise. 

On  a  recent  trip  to  England  I  searched  bookstores  associated  with 
the  University  of  London  and  the  University  of  Oxford.  Excepting 
one  book,  the  only  books  openly  available  gave  cannabis  a  basically 
clean  bill  of  health.  One  document  stated  succinctly  that  science  had 
not  established  that  marihuana  was  as  harmful  as  tobacco.  Another 
book,  prominently  displayed  at  London  hotels  and  tourist  bookstalls 
for  the  more  adventurous  youth  who  were  seeking  "underground 
London,"  gave  a  full  chapter  to  disproving  any  harmful  effects  and 
suggested  that  a  secret  British  commission  had  cleared  the  drug  for 
legal  use,  but  the  Government  was  afraid  to  make  it  public  for  polit- 
ical reasons.  I  learned,  officially,  that  such  is  not  the  case. 

Visits  to  five  other  universities  on  the  U.S.  eastern  seaboard  brought 
the  communication  gap  home  even  more  seriously.  In  one  major 
university,  I  thoroughly  investigated  the  literature  in  the  bookstores, 
and  every  single  drug  study  was  favorable  to  cannabis.  The  dean  of 
students  told  me  that  while  they  were  observing  ill  effects  on  students 
using  the  drug  in  increasing  numbers,  they  had  no  confirmation  in  the 
general  literature  to  support  their  observation,  and  were  therefore 
silent.  Comments  from  several  knowledgeable  observers  of  campus 
life  suggest  that  students  on  this  continent  will  find  almost  all  readily 
available  books  lacking  in  suitable  cautionary  material  at  their  cam- 
pus book  shops. 

Time  has  permitted  a  visit  to  only  one  Washington  bookstore.  A 
careful  look  at  all  books  on  display  for  sale  on  drug  problems  re- 
vealed that  only  one  book  detailing  effects  of  popular  illicit  drugs 


256 

was  available — a  Ford  Foundation  sponsored  study  dated  1972  in 
which  a  Dr.  A.  T.  Weil  categorically  states  that  cannabis  was  the 
only  common  drug  which  has  no  significant  physical  or  mental  harm- 
ful effects.  Technical  books  have  also  been  at  fault. 

In  the  summer  of  1973  a  scholarly  article  appeared  in  the  U.S. 
"Journal  of  Drug  Issues,"  written  by  three  up-and-coming  minds  in 
the  legal  profession,  all  holding  significant  posts,  one  a  Canadian.  It 
proposed  that  cannabis  be  removed  from  international  restrictive 
legal  controls.  Why?  Because,  and  I  quote,  "The  assumption  that 
cannabis  has  significant  inimical  effects  on  the  user  and  the  society 
in  which  he  lives  was  the  reason  why  cannabis  was  subjected  to  the 
controls  of  the  United  Nations  1966  Single  Convention.  Inasmuch  as 
this  assumption  has  been  contraverted  by  a  number  of  comprehensive 
empirical  studies,  and  because  no  evidence  has  offered  to  substantiate 
such  assumptions,  it  appears  the  raison  d'etre  for  subjecting  cannabis 
to  international  controls  is  lacking." 

The  findings  of  four  major  national  commissions  were  used  as 
prime  supporting  evidence — the  British,  United  States,  Canadian, 
and  Dutch  Commission. 

The  study  seriously  erred  in  failing  to  mention  the  cautionary 
warnings  from  the  United  Kingdom,  United  States,  and  Canadian 
Commisison  reports.  It  has  been  parlayed  around  government  justice 
departments  for  serious  study  I  am  informed. 

Last  week,  the  executive  committee  of  the  Illinois  Bar  Association 
voted  to  recommend  the  removal  of  all  penalties  for  possession  and 
use  of  marihuana.  On  inquiry,  Malcolm  S.  Kamin,  chairman  of  their 
Individual  Rights  Committee  reported  that  the  organization  NORML 
had  encouraged  this  move  by  informing  his  committee  both  in  person 
and  by  literature  that  marihuana  was  no  more  and  probably  less 
harmful  than  tobacco  or  alcohol  and  on  this  evidence,  with  none  other 
available,  the  decision  was  made. 

Mr.  Martin.  Could  you  define  NORML  for  the  subcommittee? 

Mr.  Cowan.  Yes,  it's  the  National  Organization — I  get  confused 
with  all  these  various  long  names 

Mr.  Martin.  National  Organization  for  the  Removal  of  Marihuana 
Laws? 

Mr.  Cowan.  It's  the  Repeal  of  Marihuana  Laws ;  it's  the  word  "re- 
peal" that  I  was  trying  to  recall.  I  am  so  used  to  using  the  short  form. 

Mr.  Kamin  said  it  was  a  personal  presentation  and  the  evidence 
which  they  provided  which  gave  the  Illinois  Bar  Association  the 
position  which  they  accepted,  that  this  was  a  basically  benign  drug, 
probably  less  harmful  than  alcohol  or  tobacco,  in  the  words,  "In  the 
lack  of  evidence  to  the  contrary"  they  of  course  accepted  that  posi- 
tion. He  has  asked  me  for  material.  I  followed  it  up  because  it  seemed 
to  fit  in  with  this  material. 

(Regarding  the  United  Kingdom,  United  States,  and  Canadian 
Commissions,  all  were  agreed  in  cautioning  against  the  nonmedical 
use  of  the  drug.) 

A  slick  paper  medical  handout  supplied  free  of  charge  through  the 
mails  to  American  doctors  called  "Medical  Economics,"  carried  a 
19-page  special  feature  entitled  "Learning  to  Live  with  Drug  Abuse" 
on  May  28,  1973.  It  suggests  the  Shafer  Commission  has  said  what 


257 

everybody  has  known  for  years — namely,  and  I  quote,  "for  most 
people,  based  on  what  we  know,  marihuana  is  a  relatively  safe  drug." 
In  a  headline  it  also  says  "Decriminalization  laws  are  giving  young 
people  assurance  that  marihuana  isn't  so  bad  after  all."  Decriminali- 
zation— with  eventual  controlled  legalization  like  alcohol — comes 
through  as  the  recommended  way  of  the  future.  No  mention  is  made 
of  any  of  the  serious  effects  being  considered  here. 

The  promotion  and  massive  distribution  of  books  favorable  to  mar- 
ihuana by  the  organization  NORML  and  other  similar  groups,  as 
well  as  the  Consumers  Union,  adds  to  the  availability  of  pot  permis- 
sive literature  everywhere. 

Evidence  has  also  been  given  previously  before  the  commission  on 
the  disproportionate  amount  of  time  TV  has  given  to  promarihuana 
sympathizers. 

A  brief  look  at  the  Theory  of  Communications  may  help  to  under- 
stand the  communications  gap  phenomenon. 

Communications  Theory  suggests  that  each  person  in  the  process 
of  either  sending  or  receiving  messages  from  or  to  another  person 
tends  to  either  block  or  alter  these  messages  through  a  variety  of 
filters  or  altering  devices  built  into  the  human  system.  Years  ago, 
Walter  Lippman.  brilliant  American  journalist  and  philosopher,  de- 
scribed the  No.  1  human  filtering  device  in  these  words :  "The  images 
in  our  head  and  the  reality  in  the  world  around  us." 

The  "image'  of  cannabis  which  we  hold  in  our  heads  becomes  criti- 
cal, for  we  will  normally  view  facts  about  cannabis  according  to  that 
image.  It  is  easy  to  visualize  how  our  Detroit  teacher  had  read  cer- 
tain books,  reinforced  by  newspaper  stories,  the  comments  of  friends 
and  peers  and  because  of  the  slowness  of  the  drug  to  cause  visible 
harm  found  it  easy  to  develop  a  benign  image  of  Cannabis — which 
tended  to  filter  out  negative  information  about  cannabis. 

Until  the  late  1950's.  marihuana  was  little  used  in  North  America, 
feared  as  a  drug  of  immediate  and  terrible  consequences  to  human 
health  and  sanity  and  was  placed  under  the  heaviest  penalties  of  our 
narcotics  laws.  The  Dr.  Tim  Leary's.  some  early  research,  and  other 
writings  destroyed  the  validity  of  the  "terror"  image.  "Scare  tactics" 
were  condemned.  The  removal  of  fear  was  unquestionably  a  prime 
cause  of  the  drug's  immense  immediate  spread.  We  had  to  ask  our- 
selves in  our  pre-Le  Dain  analysis  on  Prince  Edward  Island,  how- 
ever, "did  it  follow  that  a  proper  removal  of  the  terror  image  neces- 
sarily permitted  the  substitution  of  a  benign  image  implying  full  le- 
galization and  open  public  availability?" 

The  filter  of  Values  and  Concepts  is  also  important : 

Four  years  ago  our  Minister  of  Justice  and  our  Cabinet  had  to  face 
the  values  to  be  used  in  making  a  decision  about  cannabis  before  the 
presentation  to  the  Le  Dain  Commision. 

It  was  ascertained  from  reliable  medical  authorities  that  clinical 
observations  over  a  long  period  of  time  had  shown  up,  certain  possi- 
bly, serious  harmful  aspects  of  cannabis  use  which  modern  research 
had  not  yet  verified.  From  his  value  system,  the  Minister  reasoned, 
the  role  of  a  government  is  to  take  responsibility  for  the  overall  social 
health  and  well-being  of  the  community — concerns  regarding  pollu- 
tion and  thalidomide,  are  examples.  Looking  back  over  the  contro- 


258 

versy,  it  is  pleasant  to  read  the  final  Le  Dain  "cannabis"  statement  3 
vears  later,  in  which  four  of  the  Commissioners  agreed  on  the  con- 
cept that  "harm  is  the  most  useful  criterion  for  social  policy"  (p. 
265),  either  to  self  or  to  society. 

These  clinical  observations  would  have  to  be  taken  seriously  until 
such  time  as  medical  research  had  clarified  their  seriousness.  Clinical 
observation,  we  were  instructed  by  our  medical  advisers,  is  an  im- 
portant tool  of  medicine. 

Therefore,  said  the  Minister  in  his  presentation,  "We  strongly 
condemn  any  move  by  this  Commission  to  recommend,  or  any  move 
by  the  Federal  Ministers  of  Health  or  Justice,  to  legalize  or  liberalize 
the  use  of  marihuana  at  this  time,  as  a  betrayal  of  the  trust  which 
the  people  of  Canada  have  placed  in  you,  and  a  betrayal  of  the  so- 
cial, medical  principles  under  which  other  drugs  are  abruptly  re- 
moved from  the  market,  when  only  preliminary  research  has  indi- 
cated possible  human  danger"  .  .  .  "far  more  research  is  needed  before 
any  liberalization  could  possibly  be  considered,"  he  added.  In  short, 
when  warning  flags  are  up,  "A  drug  must  be  considered  guilty  until 
proven  innocent,"  the  title  of  our  second  brief  to  the  Le  Dain  Com- 
mission given  by  the  suceeding  Justice  Minister  of  P.E.I.,  the  Hon- 
orable Gordon  Bennett. 

Concepts  and  values  also  played  a  role  in  the  legal  problem.  Society 
is  always  endeavoring  to  solve  the  equation  between  total  personal 
freedom  and  the  need  for  order.  I  can  only  be  free  to  the  point  where 
what  I  do  unduly  interferes  with  another  person's  freedom  and  vice 
versa.  We  legislate  both  protection  against  undue  interference  from 
each  other  and  human  rights  together. 

Therefore,  the  Minister,  backed  by  the  Cabinet,  not  only  called  for 
continued  restrictions  but  also  for  a  reduction  of  penalties  for  mere 
possession — no  jail  sentences  for  first  and  possibly  second  youthful 
offenders,  with  the  removal  of  a  criminal  record  after  2  years  of  good 
behavior.  In  operating  the  law,  he  added,  youth  should  nevertheless 
come  to  understand  that  this  is  a  "no-nonsense  matter." 

It  was  a  plea  for  time  to  establish  the  validity  of  the  warning 
signs.  We  have  some  evidence  that  P.E.I.'s  plea  was  heeded  in  high 
places,  even  if  only  dimly  in  the  Commission's  Interim  Report. 

All  of  the  above,  of  course,  places  a  high  value  on  the  worth  of  the 
individual. 

The  second  filter  is  emotion.  If  I  dislike  or  fear  someone  or  some- 
thing I  tend  to  pass  along  selected  information  which  supports  my 
fear.  And  worse,  I  filter  out  facts  which  don't  support  my  dislikes. 
The  opposite  follows.  A  young  adult  who  has  developed  a  desire  for 
the  pleasure  of  the  marihuana  or  hashish  high,  whether  it  be  physical 
or  psychological,  will  filter  out  information  which  threatens  his 
pleasure  and  probably  let  it  influence  his  judgment,  say,  if  he  is  in 
the  news  media.  England's  Dr.  Fairbairn  told  me  of  a  recent  visit  to 
Greece,  where  he  observed  incapacitated  "hashaholics"  who  became 
quite  violent  if  any  move  was  made  or  threatened  to  cut  off  their 
supply  of  hashish. 

The  third  filter  of  importance  is  that  of  objectives  or  goals.  If  you 
have  committed  yourself  to  an  evening  out  with  the  boys,  or  a  day 
off  on  the  golf  course,  you  will  find  how  readily  you  produce  sup- 
porting evidence  and  reject  fac